AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 10-08-2026
The Writ application is being filed for the following reliefs:-
i.For payment of Bill of petitioner's admitted work of Indoor cleanliness of Sadar Hospital, Hazipur, Vaishali for the period of 01.06.2015 to 31.05.2016 for which Bills have already been submitted by the petitioner after approval of Rogi Kalyan Samiti.
ii.For direction upon the authorities of the District Health Society, Vaishali to make payment of petitioner's admitted work in the like manner of payment to other N.G.O. who has done the same work in the same district in pursuance of the same Tender notice as of the petitioner's, without being any discrimination.
iii.For declaring one of the terms of the Agreement that only Floor area should be calculated for payment which is optional in nature, redundant as the Agreement Clearly says for clear ing of all floors areas, wall tiles, roofs, bathrooms, stair, ramps, OT, Pathology, X-ray rooms, Store rooms, Post Mortem rooms and lobbics, as the same is contrary to details of work as well discriminatory action of the authorities of the District Health Society, Vaishali while making payment for the same work to others.
iv.For quashing letter No-106 dated 24.2.2016 issued by the Superintendent of Sadar Hospitlal, Hazipur, Vaishali intimating the petitioner about payment Of only floor area taking into reference of measurement of the District Engineer, Vaishali which itself contrary to this measurement.
V. For any other relief(s) for which petitioner found entitle to in the facts of the case.
The brief facts as culled out of the Writ petition are that pursuant to the tender notice for the work of outsourcing, of the District Health Society, Vaishali, the petitioner participated in the tender process and was qualified in the tender. The petitioner commenced the said work with effect from 01.06.2015 till 31.05.2016. On 13.08.2015, the petitioner requested the Deputy Superintendent of the Hospital, to issue an order for measurement of the area of the work, for which the cleaning work was being done. However, no such action was taken by the authorities. The Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Vaishali, vide Letter No. 106 dated 24.02.2016, stated that, as per the Agreement, payment would be made. Further, it is contended that the District Engineer, Vaishali, had earlier measured all the units of the hospital and the petitioner was directed to put up his bills for payment, if he was satisfied with the measurements.
It is the specific contention of Learned counsel for the petitioner that the area of measurement, itself is in dispute. The petitioner made representations before the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Health Society, Vaishali, on 03.03.2016 and 26.04.2016, vide Annexures 7 and 8, requesting for payment of the amount, which had been kept pending. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the District Magistrate and the other respondents, the present Writ petition has been filed.
A detail counter affidavit was filed by the respondents No. 3, denying all the allegations made in the Writ petition. The contents of the counter affidavit disclose that 19 tenders were received by the authorities as on the last date, i.e., 24.01.2015. The tender submitted by the petitioner was accepted, and the petitioner was accordingly awarded with the work. On 13.02.2015, the financial bids of the successful tenderers were opened. On completion of the successful evaluation process, the purchase/work order was issued in the name of the petitioner for cleaning services, at Sadar Hospital, Hajipur, on 01.06.2015. Pursuant to the Agreement, work was undertaken by the petitioner, for approximately two months and four days.
The counter further disclose that the petitioner never raised any objection regarding Clause-N, which governs the payment under the Agreement. The petitioner raised the issue only in January 2016, after a period of approximately six months from the commencement of the work. The District Magistrate cum Chairman rejected the claim of the petitioner by making a noting in the file. Pursuant to the direction of the District Magistrate, Vaishali, the Deputy Superintendent repeatedly sought information from the petitioner regarding submission of the bills. However, the petitioner failed to submit the bills in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement.
As per general conditions of the agreement at clause N, it was specifically mentioned that the only floor area shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the payment.
The petitioner submitted the bills for the work done, during the period from June 2015 to May 2016 to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Member Secretary, District Health Society, Vaishali. In turn, several letters were sent to the petitioner, informing him that payment would be made in accordance with the Agreement and on the basis of the calculated/measured area.
Heard the Learned counsel the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on records.
It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Annexure-B series clearly discloses that the representation made by the petitioner had been rejected by the District Magistrate.
The petitioner filed a detailed rejoinder. The contents of the rejoinder reiterate the averments made in the Writ petition and it further states that the petitioner, by his representation dated 24.06.2016, had already submitted the bill, which was prepared in accordance with the prescribed guidelines and norms adopted for measurement of the area of cleanliness in other Sub-Divisional Hospitals, Referral Hospitals, PHCs and APHCs etc.
It is necessary to reproduce General Condition No. 4(L) of the Agreement :-
“Any matter not covered by this agreement will be mutually settled by the parties to this agreement. In case of disputes between the parties the decision of the District Magistrate cum Chairperson, District Health Society, Vaishali will be final and binding. Which shall not be challenged in any Court of Law.”
It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the respondents that, as per the Agreement, only the floor area should be taken into consideration for calculating the amount for payment. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the actual measurement has to be taken into consideration for the amount of work done by the petitioner.
It is an admitted fact that a Tribunal has been constituted as per the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, to adjudicate disputes relating to works contracts to which the State Government or a public undertaking is a party and to provide for matters connected therewith.
The word “dispute” is defined under Section 2(e) of the said Act which reads as follows:
“’Dispute’ means any difference relating to any claim arising out of the execution or non-execution of the whole or part of a contract for works or services or both including the rescinding thereof.”
Admittedly it is a question of fact to be adjudicated by the tribunal as per the Arbitration Tribunal Act. This Court is of the opinion that question of facts cannot be decided under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Taking into consideration the fact that the representation of the petitioner has already been disposed of, the petitioner is always at liberty to challenge the same before the Arbitration Tribunal, including the issue of non-payment of bills for the work done by him.
Such an application before the Arbitral Tribunal shall be made by the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In turn, the Tribunal shall consider all the grounds raised by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, shall pass an appropriate order within three months thereafter, in accordance with law.
It is needless to say that the Arbitral Tribunal shall liberally consider the limitation aspect, as the Writ petition was filed in the year 2019.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.