JAY BEE ENTERPRISES Vs. SHIV BASANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been assigned with a job under Central Sponsored Project namely Accelerated Power Development Programme (A.P.D.R.P.) for augmentation, renovation etc. of the transmission lines in the township of Katras and Jamtara, which was executed by the petitioner and got completed in March, 2010. After its completion, according to the case of the petitioner, the State Electricity Board started drawing power through newly laid transmission lines. As per agreement, payment was supposed to be made on the pro rata basis meaning thereby that the payment was to be made time to time on completion of part of the Project but it was not only completely ignored by the Board, rather even after completion of the Project, payment was not made, though a Committee constituted for verification of the Project, had certified that APDRP Project has been completed in accordance with specification and even the Board has been drawing power through transmission lines. On such certificate even the Chairman took a decision to make payment to the petitioner. In spite of that when the payment was not made to the petitioner, the petitioner moved to this Court vide WPC Nos. 4878 of 2010 and 4881 of 2010, one was with respect to the Project at Katras and another was with respect to Project at Jamtara, wherein the prayer was made to direct the respondent Board to make payment of the claim of the petitioner as per the terms of the contract.

(2.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties, both the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of on

(3.) UPON filing of the contempt petitions, interlocutory application (I.A. No. 125/2011), was filed on behalf of the Board stating therein that some deficiency has been found in the Project, which was laid down by the petitioner and assessment of the extent of the deficiency would at least consume sometime and on that plea prayer was made to grant two months time for taking decision in the matter. That claim was resisted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by submitting that at the time of disposal of the writ petitions, the stand, which was taken on behalf of the Board for non -payment of the claim was that there has been delay in completion of the job assigned to the petitioner but now the stand is being taken that some deficiency has been found, though earlier the Committee constituted by the Board on making verification of the project had certified that the Project has been completed. Thereupon, it was observed by the Court that there may be some deficiency but the entire Project has never been shown to the faulty and as such, the respondent Board was directed to make payment to the petitioner at least to the extent of 50% of the claim. Thereupon, the Board filed Interlocutory Application for recalling/modifying the aforesaid order for which, several grounds were taken. But when none of the ground was found tenable, Chairman, Electricity Board was directed to make payment in terms of the contract to the petitioner.