Jharkhand High Court
Jitendra Singh Aged 67 Years Son Late ... vs The Secretary on 6 February, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4295 of 2023
Jitendra Singh aged 67 years son late Brahmdeo Singh, resident of
village & P.O. - Amjhar, P.S. Mayurhand, District- Chatra, Jharkhand.
... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Chief Engineer-cum-Executive Director, Drinking Water and
Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Doranda, P.O. &
P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Circle,
Hazaribag. P.O. & P.S. & District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand.
4. The Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division,
Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. & District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand.
5. The Assistant Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Division, hzb,
P.O., P.S. & District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand.
... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II
---------
Reserved on: 22.01.2025 Pronounced on: 6 /02/2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1) The petitioner in the writ petition was awarded a contract by the
Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Hazaribag
under the National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP) for
construction of Mini Rural Pipe Water Supply System in village
Barikola Jhonjhi vide a contract dt. 06.03.2013 and in another village-
Dato Kala also on the same date (Annexures-1 & 2).
-1 of 7- W.P.(C) No. 4295 of 2023
2) Pursuant thereto, work orders were issued and the petitioner
completed the works and handed over the Mini Rural Pipe Water
Supply System to the authorities in both the villages and has filed
Annexure-3 letter dt. 15.04.2017 in support of the same.
3) Petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure-5 letter
dt. 24.11.2018, in which the Respondent 4 had requested for release of
funds from Respondent 2 for payments for the works completed under
Mini Rural Water Supply Scheme 4197, CRF and others, which also
mentions the two contracts given to petitioner, and contends that there
is an admission of liability on part of respondents to make him
payments indicated therein for the works executed by him.
4) Petitioner contends that he had made a claim before the
respondents and demanded the admitted dues through two
representations dt. 17.08.2020 (to Respondent 2 and to Respondent 4),
two representations dt. 22.02.2021 (to Respondent 2 and to Respondent
4), one representation dt. 14.03.2022 (to Respondent 4) and two
representations dt. 13.06.2023 (to Respondent 2 and to Respondent 4)
(Annexure-4 series).
5) Petitioner contends that the inaction of the respondents in making
payment the admitted dues despite completion of work is illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Art.14, Art.19(1) (g) and Art.300 A of the
Constitution of India and seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the
same without further delay with interest.
6) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is not denied
that the respondents had received the Annexure-4 series of
-2 of 7- W.P.(C) No. 4295 of 2023
representations made by the petitioner. It is also not stated in the
counter affidavit that at any point of time a reply was given to the
petitioner denying the liability to make the said payment. Thus, the
respondents had maintained absolute silence all through.
7) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is alleged
stand is taken that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of
delay and laches as the matter is of the year 2012 and 2013.
In Ram Chand v. Union of India1 it was held that while
considering the question of delay and laches in filing a Writ Petition,
the Court also has to consider the inaction on the part of the authorities
who had to perform their duty. The authority cannot contend that its
failure to perform its duty within a reasonable time would be
inconsequential.
This aptly applies to the instant case.
8) Also the respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of
their own wrong in not giving any response to the petitioner in spite of
his representations for payment of the amount claimed under the
contracts awarded to him and seek to non-suit the petitioner on the
ground of delay and laches.
In Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others2, ,
the Supreme Court had held that no party can take undue advantage of
his own wrong quoting its previous citation in Union of India Vs.
Major Gen Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.)3. This was also reiterated in
(1994) 1 SCC 44
(2007) 11 SCC 447
(1996) 4 SCC 127
-3 of 7- W.P.(C) No. 4295 of 2023
M.K. Shah Engineers and Contractors vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh4.
In Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others5, it
was held:
" Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause
of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the
Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which
must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and
circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of
fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the
delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts
to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice.
In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a
constitutional Court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to
promote justice, and not defeat it."( emphasis supplied)
Considering the stand taken by the respondents discussed below,
which shocks the judicial conscience, this is a fit case not to accept the
plea of delay and laches.
9) It is settled law that mere failure or inaction to pay does not lead
to the inference about the existence of a dispute (see Major (retd.)
Inder Singh Rekhi v.DDA6).
10) It is further contended by respondents that the writ petition
involves disputed questions of fact and that there is a claim and counter
claim by both parties.
11) We shall demonstrate why such a plea cannot be countenanced in
the facts and circumstances of this case and why it is to be held to be an
afterthought and a plea totally lacking in bona fides.
(1999) 2 SCC 594
(2020) 2 SCC 569
(1988) 2 SCC 338
-4 of 7- W.P.(C) No. 4295 of 2023
12) The defence is that through a letter dt. 28.05.2015, payment
under the scheme of NRDWP was closed, and a condition was imposed
that if a work allotted was not completed, then the work should not be
resumed till further direction. The said letter is filed as Annexure-B. It
is contended that in spite of putting such embargo, the petitioner in
connivance with the Superintending Engineer and the Executive
Engineer resumed the work and completed the work in 2017 after a
lapse of four years from the date of award of the work and, that the
department has initiated action against the then Superintending
Engineer and the Executive Engineer vide Annexure-C dt. 28.09.2024.
13) It is not the case of the respondents that they had informed the
petitioner immediately after issuance of the above letter or at any time
before the filing of the writ petition that payment under the scheme had
been closed through Annexure-B dt. 28.05.2015.
If the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer had
allowed the petitioner to continue the work even after the said date,
why the department waited from 2015 to 28.09.2024 ( i.e., after filing
of the Writ Petition) to initiate disciplinary action against them, is also
not explained.
14) We may point out that the so-called defence is raised for the first
time in the counter affidavit filed in 2025 and does not appear to have
been communicated to the petitioner at any point of time in the past
upto the filing of the Writ Petition. Thus this plea is an afterthought and
a malafide plea taken simply to deny the claim of petitioner.
-5 of 7- W.P.(C) No. 4295 of 2023
15) Admittedly the respondents had allowed the petitioner to
continue to execute the work even after May, 2015 and accepted the
completed work from the petitioner without demur in 2017. They are
estopped from now raising such technical pleas to defeat the
petitioner's claim.
This is because the petitioner had executed the work on the
basis of contracts/work orders awarded to him lawfully by the
respondents and who had not intended to do so gratuitously and also
since the respondents are enjoying the benefit of the works done by the
petitioner.
So they are bound to make compensation to the petitioner under
Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872 cannot avoid the same by taking
false and vexatious defences.
16) As regards Annexure-5 relied upon by the petitioner which
clearly mentions at serial nos. 5 and 6 the contracts awarded to the
petitioner (indicating that the work was continued and indicating the
amounts payable to the petitioners), it is not denied at all by the
respondents.
17) In Popat Rao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others7, the Supreme Court has held that Governments should be model
or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious,
technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice, and
that they should meet honest claims and should not overreach a weaker
party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply
(2020)19SCC 241
-6 of 7- W.P.(C) No. 4295 of 2023
because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is
expected to be fair and just to its citizens and should not take technical
plea to defeat legitimate and just claim of citizens. The Supreme Court
followed its judgment in Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner vs.
Mohan Lal8, and Dilbagh Rai Jarry Vs. Union of India and others9.
18) As we have pointed out above, the conduct of the respondents is
grossly unfair and it is clear that not only are they trying to take
advantage of their own wrong, but they are putting forth false, frivolous
and vexatious pleas to deny the just claims of the petitioner.
19) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.
50,000/-; the respondents are directed to compute the amount payable
to the petitioner for the works executed by the petitioner, within two
months from today, and pay to the petitioner the same with interest @
9% per annum from the date of completion of the work till the date
payment is actually made.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
MM
(2010) 1 SCC 512
(1974) 3 SCC 554
-7 of 7- W.P.(C) No. 4295 of 2023
