M/S Jai Mata Di Construction Company vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
M/S Jai Mata Di Construction Company (Petitioner) filed a writ petition seeking payment of Rs. 6,02,312.39 (excluding GST) plus GST and interest for maintenance work performed for five years under Agreement No. 04/SBD-04/2013-14, dated 08.05.2013. The contract involved road construction and subsequent maintenance. The Petitioner claims the maintenance amount for the period from 2014 to 2019 has not been paid despite the work being completed and representations made to the authorities. The Respondents (State of Bihar and its officials) opposed the petition, arguing it was barred by laches due to the Petitioner approaching the court in 2025, over six years after the maintenance period ended. They also contended that the Security Refunding Form submitted by the Petitioner was not signed by the Executive Engineer, rendering payment impossible.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is maintainable and not barred by laches. It reasoned that the Petitioner had been making representations to the authorities, and the cause of action for payment of maintenance amount arose only after the work efficiency certificate dated 19.12.2024 was issued. The Court found the Respondents' contention that the Petitioner had not maintained the work from 2014 to 2019 to be without legal basis and contrary to the record, noting that the Security Refunding Form was signed by the Joint Engineer and Assistant Engineer, with endorsements confirming the road's maintenance and recommendation for payment. The Court also referred to Clause 41 of the agreement regarding the release of security deposit after the defect liability period and certification by the Engineer. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to make the necessary payments for the maintenance work from 2014 to 2019 within eight weeks.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is maintainable on grounds of laches, considering the delay in approaching the Court after the maintenance period concluded in 2019 and the petition was filed in 2025? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to payment for the maintenance work done from 2014 to 2019, as per the terms of the contract and the submitted Security Refunding Form? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the authorities have not paid the due amounts for maintenance work from 2014 to 2019, despite the contract terms and representations. They contended that the cause of action for payment arose only after the work efficiency certificate dated 19.12.2024 was issued, justifying the filing of the writ petition. They relied on Section 70 of the Contracts Act, 1872, for their claim. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondents argued that the writ petition should be dismissed due to laches, as the Petitioner approached the court after a significant delay of over six years. They also argued that the Security Refunding Form was merely a format and not signed by the Executive Engineer, thus precluding any payment. They did not dispute the completion of the construction work.
Sections Cited
Section 70
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 10 11-09-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- “i). To issue a writ/order/ direction in the nature of Mandamus for direction to the Respondent Authorities to make payment to the petitioner of Rs.6,02,312.3914/-(excluding GST) for the maintenance work done for five years in 2/6 relation to Agreement No.04/SBD-04/2013- 14 dt. 08.05.2013, with GST and interest. ii). To hold and declare that also in terms of Section 70 of Contracts Act, 1872 the claim of the petitioner is liable to be allowed and that action of the Respondent Authorities is contrary to the same. iv). To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the tender issued by the authority for the purpose of constructing the Road from Mukhtiyarpur Kabia to Banauli Naka via Bandh Saraswati Sen, the petitioner has participated in the said tender and being a successful bidder, was awarded the contract on 08.05.2013. That as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the petitioner was obligated to complete the work by 07.05.2014 and, thereafter, till 17.07.2019 the petitioner was expected to do the maintenance of the said work.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the authorities have paid the amount for the work done by the petitioner, the amounts which are due for the maintenance of the work from 2014 till 2019 have till date not been paid. Learned counsel submits that as per the terms and conditions of the tender document and also the agreement entered between the parties, more specifically, Clause 41, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of 6,02,312.3914/-.
3/6 However, the authorities even after lapse of more than six years are not paying the above stated amount due to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has all along been pursuing with the authorities for payment of Rs. 6,02,312.3914/-. That it was only when the authorities have issued the letter dated 19.12.2024, that the petitioner had to necessarily file the present writ petition. Learned counsel therefore, prays this Hon’ble Court to allow the present writ petition and consequently direct the authorities to make payment of the amounts for the maintenance work done for the last five years i.e. from 2014 to 2019. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ petition and also the prayer sought for in the present writ petition. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has been entrusted the work of construction of road and the same was completed in the year 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner was obligated to maintain the said work till 17.07.2019. That the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court only in the year 2025 i.e., after lapse of more than six years. Learned counsel has stated that the writ petition is liable to dismissed solely on the ground of laches. Further, it 4/6 is stated by the counsel for the respondents that the Security Refunding Form which has been submitted by the petitioner is only a format and, therefore, no action for payment of the amount can be taken under the said form. Learned counsel has stated that even for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the Security Refunding Form (Annexure-P/8) is also taken as correct, the same is not signed by the Executive Engineer. Learned counsel submits that unless and until the Executive Engineer signs the said form, the question of paying any amount does not arise. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
Admittedly, in the present case the fact that the petitioner has been allotted the work for construction of road and that it has been completed is not being denied by the respondent authority. The only bone of contention between the parties is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for payment of the maintenance amount from the date of completion of the work till 17.07.2019 i.e., for a period of five years. Admittedly, the petitioner after completion of work has maintained the road and submitted the Security Refunding Form on 28.10.2019 and the same has signed by the Joint Engineer as well as the Assistant Engineer. It is pertinent to note that the endorsement 5/6 of the Joint Engineer is that the road has been maintained and the same has also been recommended by the Assistant Engineer. Therefore, the contention of the respondent authorities that the petitioner has not maintained the work for the period 2014 to 2019 as envisaged under the contract is without any legal basis and contrary to the record. The authority except taking a frivolous ground that the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court after a lapse of six years and therefore, the writ petition has to be dismissed on the ground of laches has not denied the maintenance work done by the petitioner. The ground of laches also has to be discarded as the petitioner has been filing his representations to the authority concerned and it was only after the work efficiency certificate dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure- P/10) has been issued in favour of the petitioner, the cause of action for payment of the maintenance amount arises.
Further, a perusal of Clause 41 of the agreement/ contract, reads as under; “CLAUSE 41 Release of Security deposit On completion of the whole of the work, half of the total amount or security shall be repaired to the contractor after six months of completion. However, the balance half of the total amount of security will be returned after completion of defect liability period and after the Engineer has certified that all defects notified by him to the contractor before the end of this period have been corrected and also after recovery of any dues.”
6/6
Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed. The authorities are directed to make the necessary payments due to the petitioner for the maintenance work for the period of 2014 till 2019 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, the present writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated.
Ayush/- (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.