ARVIND TECHNO ENGINEERS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present contempt application has been filed at the instance of the petitioner for violating the orders dated 23.1.95 and 15.2.95 passed in CWJC No. 3431/94 (R).

(2.) Some facts are necessary for appreciating the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties:- A prayer was made in the aforesaid writ application to command the respondents to make payment of the admitted dues of the petitioner for executing various works undertaken by him. Pursuant to an agreement executed by and between the State Government and the petitioner-company, it was entrusted with some contractual works for doing various jobs at Subarnarekha Multi Purpose Project, After completion of work, it was alleged, that bill submitted by the petitioner-company, the Executive Engineer, Subarnarekha Canal Division, Galudih found that petitioner was entitled to get some refund of the amount. As it happens in most of the cases no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents in spite of repeated opportunities given to it and as such by an order dated 23.1.95, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this Court directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Chief Engineer (Irrigation), respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 was directed to dispose of the same within two months with a reasoned order. this Court also directed the respondent No. 4 that if he is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for payment, he will also consider the payment of interest in accordance with law. This order was modified to some extent on 16.2.95 directing the respondent No. 4 that if he is of the opinion that the petitioner was entitled to some amount, he will consider the payment of interest in accordance with law and the same should be paid alongwith principal amount within three months from the date of passing of the order. It is need less to say that when the aforesaid two orders were passed, counsel on behalf of the respondents was also heard. However, the State Government filed a petition subsequently to modify the orders dated 23.1.96 and 16.2.95 on the ground that by suppressing some material facts the petitioner-company had obtained the aforesaid orders. It was submitted that without disclosing the fact that the petitioner had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator pursuant to the Arbitration clause in the agreement itself and the Arbitrator was in seisin of the matter, the petitioner filed the writ and obtained the orders. This argument was countered by the counsel of the petitioner-company by saying that subject of arbitration was not in regard to the admitted dues but on the matter of disputed amount and the petitioner in the writ application prayed for payment of the dues which were admitted by one of the respondents himself. After hearing the parties, on 19.7.95 this Court refused to modify the orders dated 23.1.95 and 16.2.95 on the ground that after disposal of the representation by the Chief Engineer the matter was pending before the Government and as such no modification of the said two orders was required.

(3.) The main thrust in the contempt application is that pursuant to the order of this Court the Chief Engineer disposed of the representation filed by the Company and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 52, 15, 083/- in-stead of Rs. 77, 40, 083/- as claimed. This amount was determined by the Chief Engineer after adjusting advanced amount of Rs. 25.00 lacs. The order of Chief Engineer is dated 4.4.95 which is Annexure 4 to the contempt application. On this basis the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this amount of Rs. 52.00 lacs and odd with interest ought to have been paid to the petitioner by the State Government and that having not been paid the concerned respondents have violated the order of this Court.