M/S Aastha And Saumya Construction vs. The State Of Bihar

Original PDF →
CWJC/7613/2026HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01046658202613 May 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aastha And Saumya Construction, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking various reliefs related to an agreement (No. 5 SDB/2022-23) for widening and strengthening a road. The petitioner claimed that the work was hampered due to non-availability of entire land and landowner objections. They sought directions for foreclosure of the agreement, payment for additional soil work, leveling work, extra carriage charges, widening work, benefits under clause 10CC, difference in GST from 12% to 18%, deduction for time extension, and penal interest. The petitioner had previously made representations to the Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, on April 21, 2025, and March 23, 2026, which remained unaddressed.

Held

The Court, without delving into the merits or demerits of the case, disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage with the consent of both counsels. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that their grievances had been ventilated through representations dated 21.04.2025 and 23.03.2026 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, which had not been disposed of. Consequently, the Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary to consider these representations expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the receipt of the order. The petitioner was to be given an opportunity of hearing before any order was passed, and any order passed was to be communicated to the petitioner. The Court granted the petitioner leave to furnish a copy of the order along with a fresh representation if advised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondent authorities to foreclose agreement No. 5 SDB/2022-23 due to non-availability of land and increased costs, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment for additional soil work, leveling work, extra carriage charges, and widening work not originally included in the estimate, as contended by the petitioner. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to benefits under clause 10CC and the difference in GST from 12% to 18%, and a refund of Rs. 49,00,000 deducted for time extension, as claimed by the petitioner. 4. Whether the respondent authorities should be restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioner and directed to pay the entire amount for work done along with penal interest, as sought by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities had failed to act on their representations dated 21.04.2025 and 23.03.2026, necessitating the present writ petition. The respondents, represented by the Advocate General, did not present specific arguments on the merits of the claims during the admission stage.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7613 of 2026 ====================================================== M/S Aastha And Saumya Construction At P.O- Bhairwar, District- Begusarai, through its Partner Sunil Kumar, male, aged about 49 years S/O- Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh, R/O- Bhairwar, Ward no.- 03, P.O and P.S- Bhairwar, District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department (RCD), Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief (Work management) Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, North, RCD, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, District- Darbhanga. 6. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Benipur, District-Darbhanga. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Ranjan, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Advocate General ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

ORAL ORDER 2 13-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- “I. For directing and commanding the responding authorities to foreclose the agreement bearing agreement no. 5 B/2022- 23 namely Widening & Strengthening of Jariso chowk (SH-88) to Bharat Chowk (SH-56) Bypass road (via. Dakhram- Pauri- Mushahari- Dipa-Barmajha Pokhar-Pohaddi) in KM 0.00 to 2/5 5.550, under RCD Road Division, Benipur, pursuant to their decision taken (Letter of Acceptance) vide memo no. 77 dated 27.01.2023, moreover, till date neither entire land is available for performing the work, nor the land owners are allowing to carry out the work and due to passage of long time the price of labor, material and the cost has increased leaps and bounds. II). For directing and commanding the responding authorities for making payment of difference of soil work, from estimated value, as private land owners have excavated approximately 4000M3 of soil from the level at which the calculation table of earth work is taken in the project estimate, using JCB. III). For making payment of work of leveling which was not incorporated in the estimate of work in question, provision for leveling from 02KM in GSB, had not been made and during execution of work it was required additional leveling work was directed to be performed and total leveling work performed by the petitioner was 400M3 GSB material, out of which only payment of 13M3 was made and remaining 387M3 is required to be paid to the petitioner. III(A). For making payment of extra carriage charges as in the estimate provision has been made of carriage of sand by road from Lakhisarai via Rajendra Bridge, but due to the 3/5 construction of Rajendra Bridge, the movement of heavy vehicles were banned for last five years, due to which additional carriage of about 67KM has been done via Munger by the petitioner. IV). For making payment of cost of widening of 1165M and in 1KM DLC work, which was directed to be performed by the petitioner and accordingly was done by the petitioner and payment was not made as there was no provision in the estimate, and also payment of 2 feet, 10 inches widening, 1169 GSB, 1000M GSB+DLS. V) For directing and commanding the respondent authorities for making payment after giving benefits of clause 10CC, as there was no land available for carrying out the work further, allotted to the petitioner since, there is still acquisition of land is pending. VI). For making payment of difference of amount of GST from 12% to 18%, as from 12th running on account bills to 15th running on account bills, an amount of 18% was made by the petitioner. VII) For making payment of an amount of Rs.49,00,000/- (forty nine lakhs) which was deducted from the running on account bills of the petitioner in the name of time extension. VIII) For restraining the respondent authorities from taking any coercive action as against the 4/5 petitioner pursuant to agreement no. 05 SBD/2022-23. IX). For making payment of entire amount of the work done by the petitioner along with penal interest @18% from date it became dues, till actual date of payment. X). For making payment of cost of litigation taking into consideration the fact that due to malicious and biased attitude of the respondent authorities and petitioner has been compel to approach before this Hon'ble court. XI). For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled under law in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”.

3.

Without going into the merits or demerits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsels.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already ventilating his grievance by way of representations dated 21.04.2025 and 23.03.2026 to the Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure P/10 series) but the authority till date has not taken any steps to dispose of the same. Learned counsel therefore prays that a direction may be given to the Respondent No. 2 to 5/5 consider the said representations and take necessary action in accordance with law by fixing a time frame.

5.

Having regard to the above made submissions, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar to consider the representations dated 21.04.2025 and 23.03.2026 (Annexure P/10 series) made by the petitioner as expeditiously as possibly preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.

It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing. Any order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner.

7.

With the above directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

8.

The petitioner is granted leave to furnish a copy of the present order along with a fresh representation, if he is so advised.

Bhardwaj/- (A. Abhishek Reddy , J) U

Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.