KRISHNA CHOUDHARY Vs. BIHAR RAJYA JAL PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners had done some electrical and mechanical repairing work for the respondents Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad. Their bills amounting to Rs. 4,03,245/ -, Rs. 71,000/ - and Rs. 11,584/ - respectively were pending since long. It appears that the Executive Engineer of the Jal Parishad then wrote a communication to all the engineers concerned to respond including engineers who had since retired when the work was done. Annexure -4 responds by the Junior Engineers concerned, who had since retired , certifying that work as aforesaid had been done. Respondent No. 6 is the Executive Engineer since retired, who has also responded to the said letter (Annexure -3) and said that work was done but payment could not be made because of paucity of fund. Annexure -9 is also such letter which clearly mentions that payment could not be made because of paucity of fund. The petitioners earlier came to this Court. The writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1317 of 2003 was disposed of by order dated 10.7 2004 directing that the matter would be taken up by the Superintending Engineer who shall examine and decide the same. It seems that the matter was taken up by the Superintending Engineer to dispose of the same in detail but unfortunately as the Jal Parishad was not able to produce the records, he held that it was not possible for him to give an award. The order is annexed as Annexure -A to the counter -affidavit of the Jal Parishad.

(2.) PETITIONER submits that he on his part had produced all records before the Superintending Engineer, Merely because the Jal Parishad, who was liable to make payment, was unable to produce the records cannot be taken to be a ground to deny payment to the petitioner. The Annexures -3, 4 and 9 have not been denied by the Jal Parishad, It is submitted that as the liability to make payment is on the Jal Parishad , it cannot suppress the records and then deny liability on the ground that the claims are unverifiable for any of their officers who had failed to scrutinize the claim at the relevant time.

(3.) WITH this direction the writ application is disposed of directing the Superintending Engineer to reconsider the matter within a period of two months from today and pass a speaking order which shall be communicated in detail to the petitioner as well.