RAM CHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court is aghast at the shameless, irresponsible, and arbitrary approach of the Respondent authorities, and also as to the stand taken by them before this Court. This Court is now set thinking whether there is any semblance of governance in this State or not, or the State has withered away. One has to live, and to function, in this State to realize the misgovernance, nay complete absence of governance, in this State. After having admitted that the work in question was taken from the Petitioner way back on 17.12.84, and after having admitted the dues in their various inter - departmental communications, the Petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post in the governmental circles for payment of a paltry sum of Rs. 12,894/ - and the stand taken before this Court is that a writ Petition is not maintainable for a money claim. Has the State Govt. to be reminded of its obligations towards its citizens, its obligations towards this Court, and of the legal principle that writ jurisdiction can be invoked for payment of admitted dues. It is the constitutional duty of the Government in office to find funds to discharge its constitutional duties and functions, and failure to do so may disentitle the Government from continuance in governance. The Constitution has conferred the powers of taxation only on the Government in office to fulfill its constitutional obligations. Plea of paucity of funds in such cases can lead to the conclusion of financial bankruptcy. It is equally well settled by a long line of cases that arbitrariness is anathema to the Indian Constitution, and this Court will never hesitate to step in with all its might to check arbitrariness of the authorities. This is one such case.

(2.) THE Petitioner is a civil contractor and was asked to erect a podium and barricades on emergency basis at village Guruwa, district Gaya, for the visit of the then Chief Minister on 17.12.84. The job was done at a short notice to the satisfaction of the Respondent authorities, and the Petitioner had submitted a bill for Rs. 60,894/ - against which the sum of Rs. 48,000/ - had been made to the Petitioner, and he is striving ever since December, 1984, for realization of the balance sum of Rs. 12,894/ -. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) THE contention of the Govt. Counsel is stated only to be rejected. This can come only from an irresponsible and unresponsive Government. It is manifest from the three letters marked Annexures 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition, dated 6.12.95, 6.2.96 and 14.6.1986 respectively, which are correspondences on the present issues from one important functionary of the State to another, all stating in one voice that the work was completed in time and the sum of Rs. 12,894/ - could not be paid on account of paucity of funds. Learned Govt. counsel has not disputed the claim. The Petitioner is being harassed because the ball is in the other court. Has a Government any right to continue in office which has not been able to arrange a meagre sum of Rs. 12,894/ - towards the final settlement of the bill of the Petitioner ever since December, 1984?