Chinta Mani Pandey vs State of Bihar & Ors

The writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:

The brief facts culled out of the Writ petition are that the petitioner entered into an agreement with Respondent No.4 for construction of a Plain Cement Concrete road from Forest I.B., Naurangia to the house of Kishori Mahto in village Naurangia under Ram Nagar Block, West Champaran.

During execution of the work, the then Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Works Division-2, Bagaha, orally directed him to execute additional work beyond the work, covered under the agreement. Acting upon the said direction, the petitioner completed the additional work.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a perusal of Annexure-1 and Annexure-3, it would appear that the petitioner had executed work, in excess of the work contemplated under the agreement. Despite completion of the additional work, payment of the amount due, towards such work has not been made.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner executed the additional work pursuant to the oral direction of the then Executive Engineer, Respondent No.4. Having obtained the benefit of the work so executed, the respondents cannot refuse payment to the petitioner, and therefore, contended that the petitioner is entitled to payment of Rs.3,00,000/- for the additional work actually executed by him.

The Learned counsel lastly submits that the respondents' failure to make payment is unjustified and, accordingly, prays for a direction to the respondents to pay the aforesaid amount along with applicable statutory interest.

A detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has already been paid the entire amount payable under the agreement and his claim of Rs.3,00,000/- is towards alleged extra work.

The Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that there was no written order or sanctioned estimate authorising any additional work involving financial liability. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim payment merely on the basis of an alleged oral direction.

It is also submitted by the Learned counsel for the respondents that the documents relied upon by the petitioner do not establish that any extra work, beyond the scope of the agreement, was duly authorised or sanctioned by the competent authority. The measurement and payment made by the department were confined to the work covered by the agreement.

The Learned counsel for the respondents accordingly submits that, in absence of any valid authorisation or sanctioned estimate for the alleged extra work, no enforceable right to payment has accrued in favour of the petitioner.

The Learned counsel for the respondents in light of the above facts prays for dismissal of the Writ petition, as devoid of merits.

Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

The principal claim of the petitioner is for the payment towards the alleged extra work said to have been performed on the oral direction of the then Executive Engineer. However, the petitioner himself admits that the alleged additional work was executed, pursuant to an oral order.

It is not in dispute that the original contractual work has already been paid for. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate from the materials on record that any written order or sanctioned estimate was issued by the competent authority for the alleged extra work involving financial liability upon the respondents.

In absence of such authorisation or sanctioned estimate, the petitioner cannot claim an enforceable right for the payment of the alleged additional amount merely on the basis of an oral direction.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present Writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed.

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.