IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.4609 of 2005
Mahendra Sharan Sathi, son of Late Chhote Lal Yadav, resident of
Village-Shivkund, P.O. & P.S.-Shivkund, District-Munger.
..... ......Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Bhagalpur.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Bhagalpur.
6. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Bhagalpur.
7. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Munger.
8. The Commissioner, Finance Department, State of Bihar, Patna.
........Respondents.
-----------
For the petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate.
———-
03. 07.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for
directing the respondents, especially the Commissioner, Finance
Department, State of Bihar, Patna to make available the fund for
payment of admitted bills of the petitioner and also to pay the
admitted bills to the petitioner which was due since 1996.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
was allowed work for Simra Aahar Madhyam Sinchayee Yojna
under Lakhisarai Sub-division in the year 1987 which was
completed and verification was also done by the authority
concerned. The claim of the petitioner is for Rs.1,38,090.00.
4. On the other hand, it is claimed by the respondents
that out of the said amount Rs.58, 239.00 has already been paid to
the petitioner against the work done by him and petitioner’s claim
-2-
for the remaining amount had been rejected on 31.05.2005 by the
Chief Engineer on the basis of the recommendation of the liability
committee on the ground that it was belated by nine years and is
not possible to verify the same afresh.
5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that no verification was to be done as the verification of the work
had already been done by the authorities concerned within time
and the same fully supports the claim of the petitioner.
6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
apparent that a disputed question of fact regarding the claim of the
petitioner is involved in this case. Hence this writ petition is
disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the
aforesaid order of the Chief Engineer dated 31.05.2005 before the
appropriate forum.
(S. N. Hussain, J.)
Sunil