Md. Irshad Alam vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court, with the consent of both parties, disposed of the writ application at the admission stage. The Court directed the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Saharsa (respondent no. 6) to dispose of the petitioner's representation within one month from the receipt of a copy of the order, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court further stipulated that the final order passed by the Municipal Commissioner must be a reasoned order. If the authority found that the amount was payable, it should be paid within one month from the date of the reasoned order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, including the maintainability of the writ application. The operative direction was to dispose of the representation and, if amounts were found due, to make payment.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Irshad Alam, filed a writ application seeking a direction to foreclose a work order dated 07.04.2026, issued by the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, and to refund the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 1,02,40,000/-, including GST. The work awarded to the petitioner had been stopped by a letter dated 23.06.2026. The petitioner had previously filed a representation dated 17.07.2026 before the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Saharsa. The petitioner's limited prayer was for a direction to the Municipal Commissioner to dispose of this representation within a fixed time frame after providing a hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ in the nature of Mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to foreclose the work order dated 07.04.2026 and refund the EMD of Rs. 1,02,40,000/- (including GST) deposited by the petitioner, considering the work awarded was stopped by a subsequent letter. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought foreclosure of the work order and refund of the EMD due to the stoppage of work. The petitioner also filed a representation before the Municipal Commissioner and prayed for a direction to dispose of this representation expeditiously after a hearing. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, did not object to the petitioner's limited prayer for a direction to dispose of the representation.