Ram Pukar Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanket Khanna, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction to pay the admitted dues in respect of the works executed by the petitioner allotted vide Agreement No.12 F2 of 2004-05 with interest @ 18% per annum.

Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 21.01.2004 an agreement was executed between the respondent no.4 and the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner started and completed the works under the agreement strictly in terms of the said agreement. He further submits that the respondent no.4 by letter dated 28.01.2009 requested the respondent no.3 for revised sanction in respect of the left out works. He further submits that on 06.04.2009 respondent no.4 requested the Engineer in Chief for sanction of revised plan/estimate. When nothing was done, the petitioner issued legal notice on 27.04.2009 and also made representation before the respondent no.3 requesting him for payment of the works already executed by him. He further submits that inspite of that, nothing has been done and the due amount of the petitioner has not been paid and the petitioner has not been communicated. He submits that in the counter affidavit, the respondents have not replied about the letter of the respondent no.4 and it was stated in the counter affidavit that the work was to be completed by 25.07.2005 but the same was not completed and that is why the payment was not made.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was awarded the work for execution of the construction of road of Birsanagar Zone No.3 in the district of East Singhbhum and the agreement was executed between the respondent no.4 and the petitioner on 04.09.2004. He submits that the petitioner had done the agreement on 04.09.2004 but had not started the work till 03.01.2005. The respondent had written letter to the petitioner on 25.07.2005 to complete the work. He further submits that after the work was started by the petitioner the measurement was taken by the Site In-charge on 15.10.2004. The work was verified by the respondent and payment was done by the respondent no.4 and in this way all the payment was done by the respondent no.4 as per the measurement done by the Site In-charge and all payment was done by the respondent no.4 on 29.03.2006. Though the petitioner had to complete the work by 03.01.2005, but had done only 81.20% work till 29.03.2006. He further submits that the petitioner not completed the work and left the site abandoned. In view of this submission, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the dues are in dispute and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the agreement in question was entered into in the year 2004 and the work was need to be completed by 03.01.2005, by that time, the petitioner has not started the work. It has been averred in the counter affidavit that for the work done by the petitioner, the payment has been made. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has abandoned the work. The notice was issued in the year 2009 for payment by the petitioner and this writ petition was filed in the year 2014. Thus, it transpires that this is a money claim and it is after the stipulated time this writ petition has been filed and moreover, the claim of the petitioner is disputed. This writ Court is not inclined to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, hence the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.570 of 2014 stands dismissed.

It is open to the petitioner, if so advised, may avail remedy elsewhere.

If any other remedy is availed by the petitioner, it will be decided on its own merit without taking into account the observations made in this order.