KUMAR BISHWA NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Rity Kumar, learned JC to CA.

(2.) Mr. Sinha relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Sawarmal Rajendra Prasad v. PCCL (Civil Appeal No. 27/2000) and M/s. Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Doly Das (1999) 4 SCC 450 and a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh v. State of Bihar, (2000) 2 Pat LJR 173, made a forceful submission that a writ of mandamus must be issued directing the respondents to immediately and forthwith pay the amount of bill for the construction work done by the petitioner under three different agreements.

(3.) Before coming to the facts of the case, it would be useful to go through the decisions referred by the learned counsel hereinabove. In M/s. Sawarmal Rajendra Prasad's case (supra), the appellant was allotted a contract for transportation of coal. After carrying out the work of transportation the appellant submitted bill for an amount of Rs. 10,56,000/-. The respondent company constituted a committee to examine the bill and accordingly the committee found that the payment dues to the appellant is Rs. 900600/-. During the pendency of the writ application, which was filed by the appellant, the respondent-company admitted the claim of the appellant and in the counter filed to the writ petition also agreed to settle the claim of the appellant for the said amount. Learned Single Judge in his order noticed that the Court does not normally grant relief in case of payment of contractual dues but since the respondent No. 1 acknowledged and admitted the claim of the appellant, a direction was issued to pay the said amount. However, the order of the learned single Judge was set aside in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that even if the liability had been admitted the Court had no jurisdiction to issue any writ of mandamus. In these facts, when the matter went to the Apex Court, their Lordships held that where there is no dispute about the liability and the payment has been wrongfully withheld, a mandamus can be issued and the party need not be relegated to take recourse to other remedy.