BHAGWATI PRASAD & COMPANY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THE respondents have filed a counter affidavit without controverting the averments as made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit they merely stated that pursuant to petitioner 's claim being raised against the department the matter was referred to the Liability Committee constituted for the department. The Liability Committee considered the claim of the petitioner and examined it and found it correct and payable. When the matter came back to the department, by Annexure -A Engineer -in -Chief -cum -Additional Commissioner -cum -Special Secretary rejected the recommendation of the Liability Committee holding that the Executive Engineer had not inspected the site and some of the work was not sanctioned. In other words the ground for rejection was the failure of the officials of the State to do their part of duties. It is not disputed that the work was done. The work was repairing of public road and therefore public in nature. If a public work was done then it is well settled that payment has to be made as no work is gratuitous. If no inspection was done by the Executive Engineer then it is the fault of the department and not of the petitioner because Executive Engineer is not the petitioner 'semployee. It is elementary that for fault of the State the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. If anything the department should have first taken action against the engineer concerned for not inspecting the work and/or getting the work done without proper sanction. This court finds it curious, instead of taking action against their own men the action is taken against the petitioner -contractor who has done his part of the work and spent his money. This is clearly arbitrary and in conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution. Once the department referred the matter to the Liability Committee then it had to accept the decision of the Liability Committee. It could not choose that if the decision was favourable to the department it would accept and if it was against the department it would reject. This action is arbitrary on the part of the department. Lastly if the officers were at fault they should have been proceeded against but they have not been proceeded. The fault of officer has been used as pretence of an excuse to deny the legitimate payment. I have left with no option but to quash Annexure A, the departmental order rejecting the report of the Liability Committee and direct that in terms of recommendation of the Liability Committee the petitioner shall be paid the due amount within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum. for the time of delay because it is for no legitimate reason that the delay has been caused. This writ petition is accordingly allowed.