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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Astha and Saumya Construction, sought directions for payment of dues for work completed under agreement no. 10-F2/12-13 SCP (4515) for Nadail Ghaigo Mahadalit Tola, including maintenance. The petitioner also requested payment considering the increased GST rate from 12% to 18% and the applicability of GST provisions. The petitioner claimed unpaid amounts and sought penal interest. The petition was filed due to non-payment by respondent authorities on various pretexts, including paucity of funds, compelling the petitioner to approach the High Court. The petitioner's repeated requests for payment remained unaddressed.

Held

The Court, without adjudicating the claims on merits, directed the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Manjhaul, Bakhri (Respondent No. 6) to examine the petitioner's case and ensure early decision and disbursement of legitimate dues payable under the work order, considering all claims, within two months. Failure to comply would result in a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be recovered 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 an effective grievance redressal mechanism, preferably on a digital platform, and to inform the public about its availability. Failure to comply would lead to proceedings for deliberate violation and stoppage of salary of the concerned officer. All issues on merit, facts, and law were left open to be decided by the decision-making authority, adhering to principles of natural justice. Liberty was reserved for parties to initiate fresh action if needed. The State was to file an affidavit of compliance within three months. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the directions, mirroring the approach in M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are liable to make payment for the work done by the petitioner, considering the agreement and subsequent policy decisions regarding GST rates? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to penal interest on the outstanding dues from the date they became due until actual payment? The petitioner argued that payment for the completed work should be made, taking into account the increase in GST from 12% to 18% and the general applicability of GST. The petitioner contended that they are entitled to the entire amount of work done along with penal interest due to the delay in payment. The petitioner relied on the principle that completed work should be paid for, especially when the delay is attributed to the authorities. The respondent State did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claims for payment and interest, but the overall context suggests a dispute over the quantum or timing of payment. The petitioner also prayed for directions similar to a previous judgment in M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.