DAKSHYAN CONSULTANTS Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR BIRSA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Senior counsel for the respondents- Birsa Agriculture University.

(2.) Petitioner-appellant being aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition seeking payment of admitted dues has preferred the instant appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that admissible dues in respect of two agreements bearing nos.9F2/BAU/Plan/CADG 2005- 2006 and 10F2/BAU/Plan/CADG 2005-2006 dated 16.09.2005 have remained unpaid even after lapse of three years of its successful completion. He has referred to the aforesaid two agreements at Annexure- 2 and the letter of the Deputy Director (works and Plant) bearing No.BAU/(w&p) 257 dated 27.07.2010 at Annexure-4. It is submitted that the same officer who entered into the agreements has through his letter at Annexure-4 categorically stated that due payment shall be made without fail after receipt of the fund. Despite that payments were not made which compelled the petitioner to approach the Writ Court. The works Executed by the petitioner were duly entered into the measurement book which has not been denied by the respondents. Under the two agreements part payments to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- approx. respectively were made prior to filing of the writ petition and during pendency of the writ-petition, another Rs.5,00,000/- has been transferred to his account. Still the respondents have disputed the claim and denied payments. Learned Single Judge has not appreciated the matter in proper perspective and relegated the petitioner to approach the competent court of Civil Jurisdiction for adjudication of his rights, in accordance with law though there are no serious disputes of the facts. On the part of the University, learned Senior counsel, Md. A. Allam has referred to the stand taken by the respondents in their counter- affidavit before the Writ Court. It is submitted that none of the two works were completed as per the terms of the agreement; neither any completion certificate were issued in favour of the petitioner/appellant. In fact petitioner was asked through letter no. 141 dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure- A to the Counter-affidavit) to complete the work in agreement no. 9F2/BAU/Plan/CADG 2005-2006 and then submit the final bill with concerned certificate, but till date work had not been completed by the petitioner-agency. It is further submitted that the letter of the Deputy Director (w&p), B.A.U ( at Annexure-4) relied upon by the petitioner also does not show admission of completion of the works. All admissible payments towards completed work were released in favour of the petitioner, but since the work was not completed in full and there is no certificate of satisfactory completion by the competent engineer in his favour, reliance upon entries made in the measurement book could not be made the basis to claim that the dues were admissible. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents submits that the whole case of the appellant is based upon the contention that the dues were admitted, whereas there is no document to substantiate the same.