The Patna High Court, while disposing of a petition filed for issuance of an appropriate Writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to make payment of the dues of Rs. 7,98,401 for the extra construction work done beyond the estimated tender value with an interest of 18% per annum till the date of realization, held that if at all, the petitioner had grievance, it is for him to approach before the Civil Court for recovery of dues from respondent no. 3.
Brief Facts:
An advertisement for obtaining the tender documents and Bill of quantity for the construction of the Administrative Building was published in a local newspaper. The petitioner submitted his tender and the Tender Committee allotted the work of the construction work of the Administrative Building of the College to the petitioner. Pursuant to the allotment, the petitioner started the construction work of the Buildings and did some additional construction work, and thereafter, the petitioner produced a Bill, but the respondents paid only part amount and the remaining amount was not paid. Being aggrieved, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent no. 3 for making the payment for the additional work done by him which was not covered under the agreement/contract.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the petitioner was allotted the work of construction of the Administrative Building of the College and the period of construction work was four months from 27.09.2010. Further, the petitioner did not complete the work within the stipulated time. It was further argued that respondent no. 3 was not informed about the extra works beyond the estimates and the petitioner never took permission for making any additional works.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that it is evident that the petitioner is alleged to have done the works which were not within the purview of the agreement between the petitioner and respondent no. 3.
The Court observed that if at all, the petitioner had grievance, it is for him to approach before the Civil Court for recovery of dues from respondent no. 3. The writ petition itself is not maintainable for recovery of amounts from the Principal as it does not fall under the agreement.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, disposing of the petition, held that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for recovery of amount against respondent no. 3.
Case Title: Akash Kumar Singh v The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23388 of 2013
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ravindra Kumar
Advocate for the Respondents: Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
