Nand Kishore Prasad vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4529 Patna

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4529 Patna
Judgement Date : 17 August, 2022

Patna High Court

Nand Kishore Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 17 August, 2022

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12071 of 2019
     ======================================================

Nand Kishore Prasad S/o Sri Geeta Prasad R/o of Mohalla- Adarsh Nagar, P.s.- Barihat, Distt.- Purnea, Director, M/s Aesch-Apius Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna

2. The Addl. Cheif Medical Officer -cum- District programme Officer (Bliend) Purena

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav ( S.C.23 )

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 17-08-2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

"1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate order or direction, directing the Respondent No. 2 Addl. Chef Medical Officer cum District Programme Officer (Blind) Purnea to pay admitted dues with 15% interest to petitioner who is paying thirty (30) thousand interest per month of the Capital amount Patna High Court CWJC No.12071 of 2019 dt.17-08-2022

Rs. 12,06,240.00."

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner refers to and relies upon the decisions rendered by

learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramesh

Shankar Pandey vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in

2011(1) PLJR 692; Sudhir Prakash Vs. The State of Bihar &

Ors., reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 209; Kailash Sharma Vs. The

Patna Municipal Corporation & Ors, reported in 2009(2)PLJR

378; J.S. Company vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in

2009(2)PLJR 706; Naw Bharat Jagriti Kendra Mohalla

Congress Maidan vs. Patna Municipal Corporation, reported in

2009(2)PLJR 477; Help vs. Patna Municipal Corporation and

Ors., reported in 2009(2)PLJR 770; Anil Kumar Pandey Vs. The

State of Bihar & Ors. Reported in 2008(2)PLJR 199; Krishna

Choudhary & Ors. Vs. The Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad, Reported

in 2008(2)PLJR 615; Mundrika Singh vs. The State of Bihar

and Ors., Reported in 2008(2)PLJR 670.

The issue, subject matter of the present petition, is

non-payment of dues of the articles supplied by the petitioner to

the respondent no. 1.

The State, while admitting the work order being

placed upon the petitioner, has raised a dispute with regard to Patna High Court CWJC No.12071 of 2019 dt.17-08-2022

the nature of the material supplied in terms of the supply order.

In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have

averred as under:-

"5. That it is respectfully submitted that in the year 2018 several works orders were given to the petitioner's firm on same date for supply of medical instruments and in view of the same different medical tools were supplied by the firm but since work orders appear to be not in tune with the law and hence guidelines have been sought from the Civil Surgeon, Purnea in this regard"

Further, in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, the

respondents have averred as under:-

"8. That as regard statement made in paragraph No. 7 to 12 it is submitted that on 08.03.18 vide different Letter Nos. 51, 68, 69 authorities have given work order of more than 11 lacs in which work orders ought to have been given through tender but ignoring the same work order has been given to the petitioner's firm which is against the government purchase rule and hence after getting guidelines payment will be made to the petitioner."

At this point in time, we may also note the averments Patna High Court CWJC No.12071 of 2019 dt.17-08-2022

made in para-9 of the very same affidavit, wherein, it stands

averred that "the payment towards supply of the claims will be

made only after clearance from the Superior Authority, for the

reason that Court order has not been taken in accordance with

law."

The respondents have already refuted the petitioner's

claim of payment of the dues vide communication dated

01.11.2018, Annexure-A, Page-9 annexed along with the said

affidavit.

In this view of the matter, we are afraid, the ratio laid

down in the decisions, referred to supra, is inapplicable to the