Mahmud Alam vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 3700 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7207 of 2023
     ======================================================

Mahmud Alam Son of Md. Taslim Resident at ward no. 5, Village Usari Tola Motipur, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayti Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, Bihar.

2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Rosera, Samastipur.

4. Block Development Officer, Rosera, Samastipur.

5. The Circle Officer, Rosera, Samastipur.

6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Motipur, Block Rosera, District-

Samastipur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ghanshyam Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mujtabaul Haque (GP-12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 11-08-2023

The writ petition is filed in the nature of a public

interest litigation, seeking enquiry into the road construction

work carried on by an agency in Block Rosera, Motipur

Panchayat, District-Samastipur.

2. The writ petition was filed even without

impleading the agency. However, only looking at the report

obtained under the Right to Information Act, where there were

some defects noticed in the construction, we directed a counter Patna High Court CWJC No.7207 of 2023 dt.11-08-2023

affidavit to be filed.

3. A counter affidavit dated 27.07.2023 is filed on

behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 5 and the deponent is the

Block Development Officer, Rosera, Samastipur. The deponent

has directed the Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Rosera by letter

dated 03.02.2022 to take action in view of the report of the

Junior Engineer of Rural Work Department, Rosera and the

Executive Magistrate, Rosera, who conducted an enquiry on

orders of the Sub-Divisional Public Redressal Grievance Cell

Rosera. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer has issued a show

cause to the Secretary and Mukhiya of the Panchayat as also the

working agency. The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat

submitted a reply specifically pointing out that the work carried

out in Motipur Village was done under the supervision of the

Technical Officer according to the quality standard as per the

departmental instructions. Payment was also made on the basis

of the measurement book submitted by the Junior Engineer. The

Mukhiya submitted a reply dated 19.03.2022 on the same lines.

The report of the agency also spoke of the work having been

carried out under supervision, but the width in some portions of

the road having been reduced for reason of the objection of the

local residents. There is a slope made in certain portions for free Patna High Court CWJC No.7207 of 2023 dt.11-08-2023

flow of water which has resulted in the thickness of the road

being reduced on the flank side.

4. A detailed report has been filed by the Technical

Assistant, Rosera to the Block Panchati Raj Officer, Rosera

which speaks of the following:-

"(i) In Ward No.1 of Motipur Panchayat, PCC Road was constructed from Masjid to Nurul Khan House. Rs.6,59,484 is mentioned in measurement book whereas estimated cost of this work was Rs.7,19,000/-. Thickness of this road is mentioned as 8", 7", 6", 5" & 4" in measurement book.

(ii) In Ward No.1 PCC road was constructed from Bibi Fatima Khatoon to Nurul Khan and upto Bindeshwar Das House. Rs.4,42,140/- is mentioned in measurement book whereas estimated cost of this work was of Rs.4,99,500/-. Thickness of this road is mentioned as 8", 6", 5", 4" & 3" in measurement book.

(iii) In Ward No.1 PCC road was constructed from REO to Nurul Khan. Rs. 8,56,537/- is mentioned in measurement book whereas estimated cost of this work was Rs.8,90,600/-. Thickness of this road is mentioned as 7", 6", 5" & 4" in measurement book.

(iv) In Ward No.1 PCC Road was constructed from Kabristan to Nurul Khan. Rs.8,56,537/- is mentioned in measurement book whereas estimated cost of this work was of Rs.8,90,600/-. 'Thickness of this road is mentioned as 8", 7" & 5" in measurement book.

(v) PCC Road was constructed around the Panchayat Bhawan. Rs.9,35,088/- is mentioned in measurement book whereas estimated cost of this work was of Rs.9,36,000/-. Thickness of this road is mentioned as 4" in measurement book." Patna High Court CWJC No.7207 of 2023 dt.11-08-2023

5. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the entire

payments were made to the agency in accordance with the

measurement book and there was no payment made in excess of

the estimate or in excess of the value of the work done.

6. It is clear that an enquiry was conducted by the

respective officers and there is no defect found in the

construction; nor is any excess payment detected.

7. We find no reason to keep the public interest

litigation pending and close it.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

( Partha Sarthy, J) Sunil/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          18.08.2023
Transmission Date