Patna High Court
Shailendra Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 5 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14943 of 2019
======================================================
Shailendra Prasad Singh son of Late Narendra Prasad Singh resident of
Village- Ram Nagar, P.S. Jamalpur, District- Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in- Chief-cum- Additional Secretary-cum- Special Secretary,
Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, South Wing Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Work
Circle, Munger.
6. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building
Division, Munger.
7. The Assistant Engineer, Building Sub- Division, Munger- 1.
8. The Junior Engineer, Building Work Section- 1, Building Sub Division,
Munger- 1.
9. The Commandant, Bihar Military Police- 9, Jamalpur, District- Munger.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 2069 of 2023
======================================================
Shailendra Prasad Singh Son of late Narendra Prasad Singh, Resident of
Village- Ramnagar, Police Station- Jamalpur, District- Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Mr. Kumar Ravi Son of name not known, the Principal Secretary, Building
Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Mr. Maksudan Karn, son of name not known, the Executive Engineer,
Building Construction Department, Building Division, Munger.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14943 of 2019)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Chitranjan Sinha (Paag2)
(In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 2069 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Ambastha (Sc26)
Patna High Court CWJC No.14943 of 2019 dt.05-09-2023
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 05-09-2023
The petitioner has filed the above contempt petition
especially pointing out that there is no compliance of the
directions issued in the judgment dated 06.12.2022 passed in
CWJC 14943 of 2019. There was a direction in the judgment
dated 06.12.2022 that the Principal Secretary, Building
Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna shall file
an affidavit of compliance of the order within a period of three
months from today and on failure, Registry shall place the file
on the judicial side, the judges papers of C.W.J.C no. 14943 of
2019 has also been posted before us along with the MJC.
2. We find that a counter affidavit filed is executed on
17.02.2023 but filed on 01.08.2023. Obviously there was some
miscommunication which created the delay in filing the
affidavit. In any event, we see that Annexure-A produced along
with the affidavit is dated 04.01.2023; which is in compliance of
the directions in the judgment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that
the rejection of the claim has been made only since there was an
Patna High Court CWJC No.14943 of 2019 dt.05-09-2023
oral direction to carry out the contract work. It is pointed out
that there is a circular dated 11.08.1992 wherein the State of
Bihar permitted oral contracts to be given but however, with
sanction from the higher authorities. Immediately we notice that
there is no sanction produced or placed on record by the
petitioner with respect to the work allegedly orally given to him.
We also notice that the oral contract said to have been executed
is of the year 2008. Even according to the learned counsel for
the petitioner the work was executed in the year 2008.
4. The learned Advocate General, who appeared in
opposition, specifically pointed out that if the petitioner is
restricted from filing a suit for recovery of money by reason
only of limitation, there is no question of the petitioner
approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
also. The very grant of the work is disputed and even according
to the petitioner it is on oral directions; but without any sanction
from the higher authority. The Circular relied on is, hence, not
applicable and in any event the limitation to approach the Civil
Court with a suit for recovery of money is long past. There are
also disputed questions of fact, especially with respect to the
very grant.
5. We see that the claim raised is rejected rightly and find
Patna High Court CWJC No.14943 of 2019 dt.05-09-2023
no contempt on the part of the respondents.
6. We dismiss the contempt case.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
Prakash/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
