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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Astha and Saumya Construction, through its partner Sunil Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking payment for work completed under agreement no. 02-SBD/PMGSY 2017-18 for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The petitioner claimed outstanding amounts of Rs. 21,22,692/- for 2020-21 and Rs. 8,57,723/- for 2021-22, along with penal interest. The petitioner also sought directions for payment of the entire work done amount and litigation costs. The petition highlighted that despite completion of the work, payments were not made, compelling the petitioner to approach the High Court. The respondents, various authorities from the Rural Works Department of the Government of Bihar, did not file a response. The petitioner prayed for the writ petition to be disposed of in terms of a previous judgment by the same court in M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Circle, Samastipur (Respondent No. 5) to examine the petitioner's case and ensure an early decision and disbursement of legitimate dues, if any, payable under the scheme, along with consideration of all claims, within two months. Failure to comply would result in a cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the petitioner, recoverable from the personal salary of the concerned officer. The Court also directed the State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department (Respondent No. 1) to ensure the establishment of an effective grievance redressal mechanism, preferably on a digital platform, and to inform the public about its availability and functioning. Failure to comply with these directions would lead to proceedings for deliberate violation and potential stoppage of the concerned officer's salary. The Court explicitly stated that all issues on merit, facts, and law were left open to be decided by the decision-making authority, provided the decision adhered to the principles of natural justice. Liberty was reserved for the parties to initiate fresh action if needed. An affidavit of compliance was to be filed by Respondent No. 5 within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are liable to make payment for the work done and successfully completed by the petitioner under the specified agreements, including consideration for the increased GST rate from 12% to 18%? (This issue is framed based on the petitioner's prayers for payment of work done and consideration of GST increase). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they have completed the work to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities and are entitled to payment for the work done, including the increased GST rate. They relied on the previous judgment of the High Court in M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. to support their prayer for disposal of the case in similar terms, which emphasized the State's obligation to resolve disputes and make payments expeditiously. Revenue/State's Arguments: No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent State as they did not file a response. However, the court noted that there was no objection to the petitioner's prayer being allowed.