Patna High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs The Principal Secretary Patna And Anr on 7 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6033 of 2015
======================================================
Prasant, Son of late Pradeep Kumar, Resident of C- 202, Raj Kishori Complex
Mulchand Path, Bahadurpur Gumti, Kankarbagh, Patna- 800020.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Principal Secretary (Gramin Vikash) Rural Development, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna
2. The Deputy Secretary Gramin Vikash Rural Development, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Dayal, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : M/s Anant Pd. Singh, SC 15
Deepika Sharma, AC to SC 15
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-05-2025
1. The writ petition is filed for the
following reliefs:
"(a) For issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of
Mandamus for commanding and directing
the respondent No. 1 and 2 to lift and
collect the 11000-00 books named as
(Rastriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee
Scheme Bihar Sankalan 2009), which kept
safely at petitioner office store room since
08.01.2010
.
(b) For Issuance of an
appropriate writ directing the Respondent
authorities after collecting the 11000-00
Patna High Court CWJC No.6033 of 2015 dt.07-05-2025
thereafter will also pay the total due bill
submitted by the petitioner and also to
return the security deposit Rs 10,000-00
paid by the petitioner and for any other
relief(s) for which the petitioner may be
found entitled to in the facts and
circumstances of the present case"
2. It is pertinent to mention that the
original petitioner, namely Pradeep Kumar, died on
28.01.2024, i.e., during the pendency of the Writ
petition. In view of the said development, I.A. No.
1 of 2024 was filed seeking substitution of his legal
heir. The said interlocutory application was allowed
by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2024, and
accordingly, his legal heir, namely Prasant, has
been substituted as the petitioner in the writ
petition.
3. The brief facts pleaded by the original
petitioner(since dead) are that the Respondent No.
1, issued a supply order vide Letter No. 3995
dated 20.05.2009 (Annexure-1) to the father of the
petitioner, for the supply of books titled Rashtriya
Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Scheme Bihar Sankalan
Patna High Court CWJC No.6033 of 2015 dt.07-05-2025
2009, under the written terms and conditions
specified therein. It is submitted by the petitioner
that subsequently, Respondent No. 2, vide Letter
No. 194 dated 08.01.2010 (Annexure-2), informed
the father of the petitioner that the sample proof of
the books had been corrected and directed the
father of the petitioner to begin the printing work.
In the said Letter, it was specifically mentioned
that the entire supply process must be completed
by 24.01.2010 and accordingly, the father of the
petitioner complied with the instruction and
completed the entire supply process within the
stipulated time, i.e., on 20.01.2010. It is further
contended by the petitioner that despite timely
completion, the printed books were neither
collected nor received by the respondent
authorities. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner
repeatedly visited the office of the respondent
authority in Patna, requesting them to lift and
receive the printed books, so that the bill could be
submitted for release of the payment. It is further
contended that the respondent authorities failed
Patna High Court CWJC No.6033 of 2015 dt.07-05-2025
to take any action, resulting in substantial financial
losses to the petitioner. Furthermore, the father of
the petitioner submitted several written
representations regarding the issue, on
06.08.2010, 08.08.2011, and finally on 13.06.2012.
However, no positive response or action was taken
by the respondent authorities.
3. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that due to the arbitrary and unlawful
inaction of the respondent authorities in failing to
lift the printed books, withholding the petitioner's
payment, and not returning the security deposit
amounting to Rs. 10,000, the petitioner's legal and
fundamental rights as guaranteed under the
Constitution of India have been infringed. Being
aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.
4. A counter affidavit was filed by
respondents. It is averred in the counter affidavit
that without prejudice to the generality of the
statements made in the counter affidavit, the
respondents categorically deny and refute all the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6033 of 2015 dt.07-05-2025
contentions and allegations made by the Petitioner
in the writ application, except those specifically
admitted in the counter. It is submitted by the the
Respondents that the allegations made by the
Petitioner are either contrary to the provisions of
the relevant Acts, Rules, and Government
decisions, or are against the interest of the
Respondents. It is contended that vide Letter No.
3955 dated 20.05.2009, and Letter No. 194 dated
08.01.2010 issued the purchase order to the
original petitioner for supply 11,000 books, subject
to certain terms and conditions. The petitioner was
directed to complete the supply of the books on or
before 24.01.2010. It is further submitted that the
petitioner failed to print and supply the books
within the stipulated time, i.e., by 24.01.2010 and
further the petitioner approached the authorities
and requested for extension of six months to
complete the supply, but the same was denied on
the ground that the books were to be distributed
immediately according to its relevancy. After
failing to meet the supply deadline, the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.6033 of 2015 dt.07-05-2025
submitted a representation dated 06.08.2010,
after a lapse of seven months requesting the
department to lift the said books. It is submitted
by the respondents that such a request was
rendered meaningless in light of the Petitioner's
failure to adhere to the originally agreed deadline.
5. It is further submitted in the counter
affidavit that the original petitioner was a regular
supplier of government publications and was fully
aware of the time-bound nature and importance of
such supply orders. The petitioner had voluntarily
agreed to complete the supply by the specified
deadline and, having failed to do so, is now
attempting to recover his loss at the expense of
public funds.
6. It is specifically submitted by the
Learned counsel for the respondents that the
nature of the supply order was such that, after the
lapse of time, the material (books) had lost its
relevance and utility, and therefore, prayed to
dismiss Writ application as it is devoid of merits.
7. Heard the Learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6033 of 2015 dt.07-05-2025
petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondents.
8. Having considered the rival submissions
and the materials on record, this Court finds no
illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the
respondents in refusing to accept the belated
supply. Government contracts, particularly those
involving time-sensitive material for public
distribution, are subject to strict timelines, and
failure to adhere to such timelines defeats the very
purpose of the supply of the books in question. The
representations made after the expiry of the
delivery period, cannot revive a lapsed contractual
obligation, especially when the petitioner has not
shown sufficient cause for the delay. It is also
noticed by this Court that the original petitioner
was a regular supplier of government publications
and was, therefore, fully aware of the time-bound
nature and importance of such supply orders. The
petitioner's plea, made under the guise of being a
layman, that the respondents failed to collect the
books from his premises, is misconceived and
Patna High Court CWJC No.6033 of 2015 dt.07-05-2025
untenable, as the obligation was clearly upon the
petitioner to deliver the books to the designated
location of the respondents. This lapse, coupled
with the failure to deliver the books within the
stipulated period, further weakens the petitioner's
claim and does not warrant interference under writ
jurisdiction. This Court is further of the view that no
fundamental or legal right of the petitioner has
been infringed that would warrant interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is found to
be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
10. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 14.05.2025
Transmission Date
