Kaleshwar Prasad Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Kaleshwar Prasad Yadav, a contractor, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking payment of the difference in GST at 7% as per clause 35 of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) and contract clauses in various works departments of the Government of Bihar. The petitioner alleged that despite repeated requests to the concerned authorities, no response was received, and the dispute remained unresolved. The petitioner sought disposal of the case in terms of a previous judgment by the same court in CWJC No.13024 of 2022, M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary of the Rural Work Department and other officials, were the respondents. The dispute involved alleged non-payment of dues as per the contract terms.

Held

The Court, without delving into the merits of the GST claim, disposed of the writ petition by directing the authorities to resolve the dispute in accordance with the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, and the principles laid down in the judgment of M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious consideration of claims, disposal of requests, and disbursement of undisputedly due amounts. Specifically, Respondent No. 5, the Ex. Engineer, R.W.D., Work Division, Darbhanga, was directed to examine the petitioner's case and ensure early decision and disbursement of legitimate dues within two months, failing which costs of Rs. 5,000/- would be recovered from the officer's salary. Respondent No. 1, the State of Bihar, was directed to ensure an effective grievance redressal mechanism, preferably on a digital platform, and to inform the public about its availability. The Court clarified that all issues on merit, fact, and law were left open to be decided by the concerned authority, adhering to principles of natural justice. The State was also directed to file an affidavit of compliance within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the difference of GST at 7% as per SBD clause 35 and contract clauses, and if so, what is the mechanism for resolving this dispute? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they are not being paid the difference of GST at 7% as stipulated in the SBD clause 35 and the contract. They contended that their repeated requests to the authorities for resolution have been ignored, leading to an unresolved dispute and pending dues. They prayed for the petition to be disposed of in terms of the judgment in M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., which emphasized the importance of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, and Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for dispute resolution. Revenue's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue side regarding the merits of the GST claim. However, the State's counsel did not object to the prayer for disposal in terms of the aforementioned judgment.