High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Haseena Khatoon vs The State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 28 February 2017 · Citation: (2017) 02 PAT CK 0102

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shivaji Pandey
RESULT
Disposed off
CASE NUMBER
3065 of 2016
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

40 paragraphs · 391 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2.

The short facts of this case are that the husband of the

petitioner was allotted the Work Order for sinking tube well at

different places in the District of Begusarai in the year 1990-91. In

pursuance thereof, the husband of the petitioner had completed the

work within the stipulated time and submitted the bill of

Rs.1,57,140/-. The District Magistrate, Begusarai, sent a letter to

the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources, Minor Irrigation

Department, Bihar, Patna vide letter No.1159 dated 30.06.1997 and

requested to grant permission for withdrawal of the amount from

the civil deposit for making payment to the contractors including

the husband of the petitioner.

3.

Time to time, the husband of the petitioner filed

applications for payment of the outstanding dues for the work done

by him, but without any fruitful result. The District Magistrate,

Begusarai, again sent a letter No.3576 dated 16.12.2008 for

releasing an amount of Rs.70.494 lakh for distribution of the same

to the different contractors but without any result. In the meantime,

the husband of the petitioner died. The petitioner approached the

Block Development Officer, Cheriya, Bariyarpur, Begusarai, for

the payment of the outstanding amount. The petitioner even

approached the District Magistrate, Begusarai for the payment of

the outstanding amount, but always returned with empty hand.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

husband of the petitioner sunk tube well at different places as per

the Work Order and he cannot be deprived of the amount which he

is entitled to.

5.

No counter affidavit has been filed by the State, but

this Court directs the District Magistrate, Begusarai to examine the

case of the petitioner. If he finds that the petitioner is entitled to

undisputed amount then the same will be paid to her along with 7%

simple interest from the date of completion of the work till the date

of actual payment without any delay preferable within a period of

three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this

order. In case of dispute, the District Magistrate, Begusarai, would

pass a reasoned order and the petitioner will have a liberty to take

legal course as available under the law against the order.

6.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this

writ application is disposed of.