Jharkhand High Court
M/S Md. Naim Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3431 of 2023
---------
M/s Md. Naim Ansari, a proprietorship firm, Nawdiha, Bokaro. .... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro.
4. The Additional Collector, Bokaro.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Bokaro.
6. The Assistant Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Bokaro.
7. The Junior Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division Bokaro.
.... Respondents.
------
CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Suchendra Prasad, S.C.
Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra, AC to GP-IV
---------
02/Dated: 08.08.2023:
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed
the following, (Per, Ananda Sen, J.)
ORDER
In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioner has prayed for payment of admitted dues of Rs.42,86,722/- in lieu of
the additional work done by the petitioner upon the direction of the respondents,
which according to him, has not been paid even after more than three years
from the completion of the work. A prayer has also been made to pay interest on
the due amount.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dues, which the
petitioner is claiming is an admitted dues, thus the respondents are duty bound
to pay the same. As per him, the petitioner had completed the work as per the
contract, in fact, he has also done some extra work, as per the direction of the
respondents, but the respondents has not paid the amount. He refers to
Annexure-3 of the writ petition to emphasize his stand that after completion of
the work, the building has also been handed over to the respondent on
17.3.2020. He lastly submitted that Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and
Executive Engineer of the Department has valued the work, which the petitioner
has done, which would be evident from Annexure-4. As per him, as the amount
has not been paid, which, in fact, is admitted, the petitioner has been forced to
approach this Court.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is no
document attached to the writ petition, which would suggest that the appropriate
authority has admitted the dues of the petitioner. Even the document, which the
petitioner is referring to, cannot be said to be an admission on the part of the
State or the Officer, authorize to make such admission. He further submitted
that the construction work had to be completed within twelve months from the
date of issuing the commencement order (Annexure-2), which is dated
19.5.2015, but from Annexure-3, which is the completion report, it is evident that
the work, if at all was completed, was completed on 17.3.2020 i.e. much beyond
the period fixed by the agreement, thus it is high probability that the petitioner is
liable to pay damages.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
5. From the pleadings of the parties and after hearing the arguments,
we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, thus, it is not proper to call for
the counter affidavit from the respondents.
6. From the record and the pleadings of the parties, we find that there
is no document to suggest that the respondent has admitted any dues which the
petitioner claims. The petitioner has relied upon the agreement and the
commencement order, to show that the work was allotted to him. The fact that
the work was allotted to the petitioner is not disputed. The question herein is as
to whether the dues, which the petitioner is claiming are admitted or not.
Annexure-4 to the writ petition, referred by the petitioner, suggests that the
petitioner has made some construction but in the said document, there is no
admission on the part of the any officer that the petitioner is entitled for any
specified amount.
7. This Court in the case of Nitesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of
Jharkhand and Ors. [WP(C) No. 4665 of 2018] vide judgment dated 17.7.2023
dealt with the issue of admitted dues vis-a-vis filing of the writ petition. In
paragraph-9 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court after referring the case of
Joshi Technologies International Inc. versus Union of India & Others
reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728 has held that there is absolutely no bar in
maintaining a writ petition even in contractual matters, but normally the court
should not exercise such discretion in respect of money claim. Be it noted that in
paragraph 69.4 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations
are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.
8. In paragraph 19 of the aforesaid case, this Court has also held as
under;
Now, the question is what would be the nature of admission
to bring a money claim within the ambit of "admitted dues". In
our opinion, a party must raise a claim of money and there
has to be specific claim with an assertion that the dues are
admitted by the other side. Once the said claim is made, the
person against whom the said claim is made, must admit the
claim made by the former. The said admission must be clear,
specific and unambiguous, then only the same can be used
against the person making them. The admissions have to be
clear and must have a binding effect on the person making
such admission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bharat Singh versus Bhagirathi reported in AIR 1966 SC
405 at paragraph 19 thereof has held as under:
"19. Admissions have to be clear if they are to be
used against the person making them. Admissions
are substantive evidence by themselves, in view of
Sections 17, and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act,
though they are not conclusive proof of the matters
admitted. We are of opinion that the admissions
duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of
whether the party making them appeared in the
witness box or not and whether that party when
appearing as witness was confronted with those
statements in case it made a statement contrary to
those admissions. The purpose of contradicting the
witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is
very much different from the purpose of proving the
admission. Admission is substantive evidence of
the fact admitted while a previous statement used
to contradict a witness does not become
substantive evidence and merely serves the
purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of the
witness. What weight is to be attached to an
admission made by a party is a matter different
from its use as admissible evidence."
9. In paragraph 21 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that
when a party claims any relief, which they are claiming to be admitted by the
other side, then the Court has to see that the admission is conscious,
unambiguous and categorical and the person is showing intention that he is
bound by it.
10. Considering the aforesaid judgment and after going through the
record, we find that there is no such statement, which can said to be an
admission on the part of the respondent to make the claim of the petitioner as
"Admitted Dues".
11. Further there are questions of limitation, which also arises in these
type of cases. The issue of limitation is a question of law and fact, which needs
to be proved by the evidence.
In this case also, we find that it is the case of the petitioner that the work
had to be completed within twelve months from the date of issuance of the
commencement order, which was issued on 19.5.2017 (Annexure-2) whereas,
the petitioner has completed the said work on 17.3.2020 (Annexure-3). Thus,
we feel that there is serious disputed question of facts, which can arise in this
case, which needs to be proved by leading evidence, which can only be dealt in
a full fledged suit.
12. In that view, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to
approach the competent civil court, for the reliefs claimed.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
Anu/-Cp2 (Ananda Sen, J.)
