VISHWANATH CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE MEIN CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had filed this writ application under very peculiar circumstances. He had executed three contracts for the Government being Contract No. 47F2 1993 -1994, Contract No. 46F2 1993 -1994 and Contract No. 49F2 1992 -1993. As is usual when matters for payment came, on one pretext or the other or on one pretence or the other, payments were not made. Ultimately good sense prevailed on the State and the matter was referred to a Liability Committee headed by the Chief Engineer to enquire into the matter. The Liability Committee enquired into the matter and, so far as the first two contracts are concerned, accepted the State's liability in full, as claimed by petitioner. Even though the Liability Committee accepted it, the Engineer -in -Chief then, as an appellate authority, the propriety whereof this Court doubts, went into the question but fortunately, for the petitioner, did not differ. The Engineer -in -Chief also accepted the full liability of State in respect of the first two contracts and payment was ordered to be made by order dated 03.12.2007 though payment in this respect was being made after 15 years. Petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks compensation.

(2.) SO far as the third contract is concerned, the claim of petitioner was rejected in toto by the Liability Committee and affirmed by the Engineer -in -Chief. The reasons are to be found in the deliberation of the Liability Committee in this regard. Petitioner challenges the rejection of his claim. The deliberation is contained in the proceedings of Liability Committee dated 22.03.2007 (Annexure -10 to the writ petition) and once again it is the often repeated stand. In nutshell, the stand of the State is that their officers failed to verify the work, therefore, the claim was doubtful. Exactly what has been stated can now prevail be discussed. Contract No. 49F2 1992 -1993 was for supply of stone metal and chips alone. It is clearly stated that the first running bill was submitted for Rs. 52,047/ - but in view of paucity of funds and lack of allocation, it was limited to Rs. 50,000/ - as paid, in my view, an absolute preposterous illegality on part of the State. Then it is stated that the second and the final bill is reflected in the measurement book for the balance sum. It is not in dispute that the measurement book, which is Government's own document and maintained by the Government itself and the contractor had nothing to do with it, clearly showed receipt and measurement on 27.12.1992. The verification of measurement was partially done by the Junior Engineer and, thereafter, the Executive Engineer did not do anything. I may specifically state that it does not say that anyone disagreed with the measurement or doubted the measurement or found it nugatory. The Junior Engineer and the Executive Engineer simply failed to act as they were dutybound to act, thus, the Liability Committee doubts the liability. Thus, what the State is saying that because their officers failed to discharge their statutory duty in a lawful manner, the petitioner must be hanged. Again most preposterous proposition, I cannot reply it better than in the words of Chief Justice Chagla in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City : [1954]25ITR90(Bom) :

(3.) THE supplies having been measured and if they have been utilized, the petitioner would be paid. The tenure of the order of the Liability Committee clearly shows that the officers failed to verify the stocks as there was shortage of fund and no allocation in that regard and, therefore, they also chose to give up their responsibility. If it is found that as per measurement book, supplies were received then petitioner would be paid. State cannot shirk its liability and must do what is just and fair.