D.B.S. Constructions PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, D.B.S. Constructions Pvt. Ltd., a registered contractor, filed a writ petition seeking the refund of Rs. 8,50,800 deducted from three bills (Bill No. 19 dated 31.05.2016, Bill No. 23 dated 07.10.2021, and Bill No. 25 dated 07.10.2021) and Rs. 11,05,232 deducted from Running Account Bills between 05.05.2014 and 05.10.2018 under EPF and VAT GST, following the closure of an agreement. The petitioner also sought the release of dues for operation and maintenance work at Srikhinda State Hydal Project. The petitioner had made representations on 28.10.2021 and 09.06.2022 regarding the pending dues, but no action was taken by the respondents. The Court noted that the dispute could have been resolved under the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011.

Held

The Court did not adjudicate the claims on merits, leaving it open for the authority concerned to take a decision in accordance with law. The Court directed Respondent No. 2, the Managing Director of Bihar State Hydroelectric Power Corporation, to examine the petitioner's case and ensure early decision and disbursement of legitimate dues, if any, 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. Respondent No. 1, the Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, was directed 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. 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 to initiate fresh action if needed. An affidavit of compliance was to be filed within three months. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment in M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution, with the directions governing this case mutatis mutandis.

Key Issues

1. Whether the deductions made from the petitioner's bills are contrary to the terms of the agreement, and if so, whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 8,50,800? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the agreement dated 21.08.2012). 2. Whether the deductions made under EPF and VAT GST from the Running Account Bills between 05.05.2014 and 05.10.2018 are legally sustainable, and if not, whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 11,05,232? (Question of law and fact, turning on the provisions related to EPF and GST deductions and the terms of the agreement). 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of outstanding dues for the operation and maintenance work of Srikhinda State Hydal Project? (Question of law and fact, turning on the contractual obligations and final bill settlement). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the deductions were made contrary to the agreement and sought the refund of the deducted amounts and release of final dues. The petitioner also prayed for the petition to be disposed of in terms of a previous judgment of the Court in M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. Respondent's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the merits of the deductions or dues. However, the Court noted that there was no response to the petitioner's requests.