RAGHAV CONSTRUCTION, SINGHWARA, DARBHANGA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had entered into an agreement being Agreement No. 31F2/ 2005 -06 with the State for widening and strengthening of Simri -Muruliya Chak Road. As per the said Agreement which was signed by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization (W) Division, Benipatti, the Executive Engineer was the Engineer In -charge. While the work was being executed, under written orders of the said Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer, petitioner was directed to undertake additional work. The present writ petition is with regard to payment for additional work under the said Agreement.

(2.) THE Executive Engineer, repeatedly by his communication from 2006 onwards, has been requesting for additional fund allocation for payment of additional work done by the petitioner in respect of earth filling along the roads but no funds were being allocated, for which petitioner has come to this court. A counter affidavit has been filed today regrettably sworn by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Benipatti, Madhubani, who professes to be well acquainted with the facts. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has been paid for the work under the Agreement. "However it is humbly submitted that there is no provision for executing extra work in the Agreement". This is deliberately made false statement if, we refer to Clause 11 of the said Agreement itself. It clearly provides that the contractor is bound to do extra work as is assigned under written orders of the Engineer In -charge. This is fully complied with, in the present case, as is evident from Annexure -1. Then what is stated is that the work was got done against estimate and beyond norms, which itself shows that work was got done. This is further clear from the entries in the measurement book, which were verified in respect of extra work done. In the counter affidavit, it is clearly stated that as the then Executive Engineer did not follow proper procedure before getting the extra work done, petitioner 'sclaim for extra work done was being rejected. A reference also has been made in Clause 23 of the Agreement which was deleted by Government Notification of the year, 1992. I regret to find any relevance to the present dispute in this regard. If the clause has been deleted, then no arbitration is possible under the Agreement. Petitioner does not want arbitration, but wants fund allocation for payment of his bills.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid, it is undisputedly clear that there is no dispute with regard to petitioner having done the extra work. The liability to pay is being disputed only because prior to giving orders to the petitioner for doing extra work, certain formalities were not complied with by the State Officer.