Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs M/S R.K. Tech A Proprietorship Firm on 17 April, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.75 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5645 of 2024
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The State Election Commission, Bihar through its Secretary, State Election
Commission, Bihar, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Secretary, State Election Commission, Bihar, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, Bihar.
6. The District Deputy Election Officer (Panchayat)-cum-District Panchayati
Raj Officer, Sitamarhi.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
M/s R.K. Tech a Proprietorship firm having its registered office at NH-28A,
Bankat Bairiya, Police Station Muffasil, Post Office Motihari, District East
Champaran 845401 through its Proprietor Mr. Raj Kumar Tripathi (male),
aged about 44 years, son of Ram Babu Tripathi, resident of Rajpur, Post
Office Rajpur, Police Station, Kesaria, District East Champaran, Bihar -
845432.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashish Giri, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Riya Giri, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 17-04-2025
Re: Interlocutory Application No. 02/2025.
The aforenoted interlocutory application has
been pressed for condoning the delay of 96 days in filing
Patna High Court L.P.A No.75 of 2025 dt.17-04-2025
this appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the
delay is condoned.
3. Interlocutory Application No.02 of 2025
stands allowed.
4. Heard Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, the learned
Senior Advocate for the appellants/State and Mr. Ashish
Giri, the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent.
5. Mr. Khan, appearing for the State has
assailed the judgment impugned dated 10.09.2024
passed in CWJC No. 5645 of 2024 whereby the learned
Single Judge has directed the State to make total
payments to the respondent/writ petitioner as per the bills
submitted by him as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order, referred to above.
6. The respondent, represented here by Mr. Giri,
had been entrusted with the work of preparing the voters
Patna High Court L.P.A No.75 of 2025 dt.17-04-2025
list, Photo IDs and other cognate matters related to the
election. After the completion of the work and after
having obtained the completion certificate by the
concerned authority of the State, bills were submitted for
final clearance but the same would not be cleared by the
State. Since no reasons were also assigned for delay in
clearing the bills, the respondent sought an information
through the mechanism of R.T.I. as to the reason for the
payments not forthcoming in his account against the bills
submitted by him. The R.T.I. information to him disclosed
that perhaps the bills were not cleared because of the
respondent not having furnished a utilization certificate in
form 'K'.
7. The respondent thereafter approached this
Court for a direction to the State to make payments to
the respondent /writ petitioner against the work
completed by him.
8. In the writ proceeding, it was urged on behalf
of the State that though completion certificate was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.75 of 2025 dt.17-04-2025
granted by one of the authorities of the State/appellants
but in order to ensure that payments do not go to the
wrong hands or more money is not paid to a contractor, a
committee was constituted to evaluate the work, specially
with respect to the completion of the work which was
assigned to the contractor.
9. The committee after evaluation, responded
that the only amount which was payable to the
respondent was around Forty Lakhs and odd, out of which
Twenty Lakhs and odd had already been received by the
respondent.
10. Mr. Giri vehemently argued that the learned
Single Judge had taken note of the fact that behind the
back of respondent, an enquiry was conducted by a three-
men committee, which came out with a report that certain
documents necessary for clearing the bills of respondent
were not filed along with the bills, specially form 'K'.
Further contention of Mr. Giri is that aforenoted form 'K'
is lying with the appellants/State and not with him. The
Patna High Court L.P.A No.75 of 2025 dt.17-04-2025
demand for such a document only tantamounts to asking
the respondent to do something impossible for defeating
his rightful claim of getting his bills cleared for the work
which he has completed to the satisfaction of everybody.
11. After hearing the arguments on behalf of the
parties and after going through the judgment impugned,
we are of the view that straightaway, the appellants
ought not to have been asked to make payment of the
bills submitted by the respondent, without getting it
cross-checked whether the bills were rightly raised,
whether the report of the committee was genuine and
that whether the respondent had complied with all the
obligations which he was entrusted with.
12. True it is that the committee went for an
evaluation behind the back of the respondent but then,
once a report of a committee, specially constituted for the
purposes, is on record, it would only have been fair and
prudent to give one opportunity to the respondent to
explain his cause after he was made known of the lapses,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.75 of 2025 dt.17-04-2025
if any and then only a decision ought to have been taken.
13. Considering this aspect of the matter, we
modify the judgment impugned to the extent that a notice
shall be sent to the respondent/writ petitioner by the
appellants /State within a period of 15 days, to be
counted from today, intimating him the reasons for not
clearing the bills submitted by him and after the
explanation is provided, a decision shall be taken within a
further period of 21 days, to be counted from the date of
receipt of explanation of the respondent. Whichever order
would be passed by the concerned authority, that shall be
communicated to the respondent forthwith.
14. We also make it clear that while undertaking
this exercise, the State/appellants would not ask for
unnecessary documents from the respondent which they
themselves are in possession of and would not resort to
knit picking over minor issues. If at all, the payments
against the bills are required to be made, that shall be
paid forthwith without any further delay.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.75 of 2025 dt.17-04-2025
15. With the aforenoted modification in the
impugned judgment, the appeal stands disposed of.
16. The interlocutory application/s, if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sunilkumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 19.04.2025
Transmission Date N/A
