BINAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these three writ petitions the question involved is as to whether the respondents are legally justified in withholding their payment for the work executed by them pursuant the agreement "despite issuance of cheque by the competent authority, namely, the Executive Engineer after verifying the measurement book inspecting the site and finding the work satisfactory and complete.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Executive Engineer (respondent no. 5) issuance of cheque in favour of the respective petitioner is not disputed. It is, however, stated that the cheque received by the respective petitioner was not presented before the Treasury in time, rather it was presented before the Treasury at the belated hour resulting in that they were not honoured as the financial year came to an end. Thus finding no way out left the claim was placed before the Liability Committee which has been rejected by a speaking order. A copy of the decision of the Liability Committee which has been rejected by a speaking order. A copy of the decision of the Liability Committee dealing with the claim of all the three petitioners has been annexed as Annexure 'A' to the counter affidavit filed in the first case. Bare perusal of the decision of the Liability Committee shows that the claim has been turned down on the ground of some irregularity committed by the officials and not by this petitioner. It is even not alleged that the work has not been executed as per the agreement.

(3.) It is really unfortunate that even after issuance of the cheque by the competent authority on execution of work by these petitioners which could not be encashed because of lapse of the financial year, their claim have been rejected on such flimsy report of the Liability Commit- tee. In the case of Hari Kishore Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 8981 of 2003) disposed of on 5.8.2004, this Court has held that for non-compliance of any such formality by the concerned authority the contractor cannot be penalised by rejection of due payment after taking work from him, more so, when it is not disputed that the works were allotted after complying with the formalities of inviting tender and entering into the agreement etc. by the competent authority. More over, nothing has been shown as to under what provision the Contractor is required to ensure about the compliance of any of the formalities mentioned in the decision of the Liability Committee before taking up the work. In the case of Hari Kishore Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. it has been held that "if at all any irregularity has been committed that it is by the concerned Engineer/authority and for that they alone can be held responsible and penalised but on that account denial of due payment to the petitioner for the work executed by him as per agreement, in my opinion, is wholly arbitrary and malafide."