Sri Rajendra Sharma vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 4083 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        Letters Patent Appeal No.1411 of 2019
                                           In
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16451 of 2018
     ======================================================

Sri Rajendra Sharma S/o Late Bako Sharma, R/o Mohalla- Dan Nagar, Ward No.-3, Post and P.O.- Khagaria, Distt- Khagaria.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

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

2. The Additional Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Bihar Rural Work Development Bailey Road, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna.

3. The Secretary, Government of Bihar, Rural Works Department, Bihar Government, Bihar.

4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Department, Works Division, Patna.

5. The Chief Engineer-2, Rural Works Department, Bhagalpur, Harding Road, Barack-2, Patna.

6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Purnea.

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

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 28-08-2023

The petitioner by the above writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks directions to the

respondent authorities to pay the amounts claimed by him for

the maintenance work carried out between 12.12.2011 to

01.12.2015. According to the memorandum of the writ petition,

an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1411 of 2019 dt.28-08-2023

State of Bihar pursuant to an advertisement inviting open

tenders in which the petitioner turned out successful. The

petitioner was granted the contract for construction of a road

under Santhal Tola NH Number 107 to Rajwada, under the

scheme of Mukhyamantri Gramin Sadak Yojna. The agreement

was entered on 27.03.2007; which road was to be completed by

02.12.2011 after which the contractor was also obliged to

maintain the same till 01.12.2015. It is the submission of the

petitioner that the maintenance of the road was carried out as

required and there were no adverse remarks against the

petitioner during the entire period of contract as well as the

maintenance of the road. The petitioner, after the period of

maintenance submitted a bill of Rs. 6 lakh which has not been

paid till date.

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petition finding that the claim is made after 3 years and the

reason for the delay is only the repeated representations filed

before the authorities concerned. Un-represented memorials

would not extend the period of limitation and in any event the

claim raised is one for recovery of money, pure and simple,

which cannot be adjusted under writ jurisdiction.

3. On a query made by this Court in the appeal Patna High Court L.P.A No.1411 of 2019 dt.28-08-2023

filed, the State has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that

entire payments, as per the agreement entered into, has been

paid and the bills submitted, with respect to maintenance works

alleged to have completed by him are not valid or permissible. It

is categorically stated that the appellant/petitioner has not

carried out any maintenance work. It is also pointed out that

there is no substantive evidence produced by voucher or bills in

support of the maintenance work alleged to have been carried

out by the appellant nor any measurement submitted, as has

been entered in the measurement book and approved by the

Officers on the field.

4. Admittedly, there are disputes raised by the

respondent and in such circumstances, this Court cannot

definitely invoke writ jurisdiction. We are in perfect agreement

with the orders of the learned Single Judge insofar as even

according to the appellant, the maintenance work was

completed on 01.12.2015 and the writ petition is filed on

24.10.2019, after expiry of 3 years; the limitation period for

filing a suit for recovery of money. We are quite clear in our

minds that the writ petition cannot be entertained for settlement

of disputed money claims and, in any event, the appellant has

approached this Court after the limitation expired even for Patna High Court L.P.A No.1411 of 2019 dt.28-08-2023

maintaining a suit for recovery of money.

5. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the

appeal and dismiss the same.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

( Partha Sarthy, J) sharun/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          31.08.2023
Transmission Date