M/s F. F. Info. Com. vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

(i)

Issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order as contained in Memo no. 1700/DRDA/Sita. dated 05.09.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi in pursuant to order of this Hon'ble Court dated 09.02.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1191 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the representation filed on behalf of petitioner on 24.10.2013 claiming the due payment of Rs. 15,59,300-00 after adjusting the advance amount paid to petitioner, has been rejected and claims of petitioner has been denied. A copy of Memo no. 1700 dated annexed 05.09.2016 herewith is and marked as Annexure-1 to this writ application.

(ii)

Issuance of consequential writ in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 15,59,300-00 as spent by petitioner after adjusting the advance amount paid to petitioner by different Block Development officer to the tune of Rs. 12,75,000-00 with interest @ 18% per annum because the Respondents B.D.O. themselves had stopped the petitioner from completing the projects after the petitioner had under taken the works and even proforma A, B, C, D, E were submitted.

(iii)

Issuance of further direction to Respondents including the B.D.Os of different Blocks, Respondents 4 to 12 not to take any step for recovery of advance amount from the petitioner which was given by Respondents B.D.O. as advance amount in pursuant to works orders issued by them and even agreements were executed and proforma ABCDE were submitted by petitioner prior to payment of advance payment.

(iv)

Issuance of an appropriate holding and declaration that the District Magistrate has failed to appreciated consider that once in pursuant to Government orders, works orders were issued to petitioner, agreements will all respondents B.D.O. were executed, equipments and required articles were purchased by petitioner, staffs employed and paid, proforma A, B, C, D and E were submitted, the petitioner was restrained from his works and work was allot to some one else at District level by District Administrative and therefore, petitioner was/is fully entitled to his due payment for the works done by him and thus the order of learned D.M., Sitamarhi dated 05.09.2016 is bad and is fit to be quashed.

(v)

Any other relief or reliefs be granted to petitioner to which he is found to be entitled to.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was paid advances for conducting certain works relating to Socio-Economic and Caste Census 2011 in the district of Sitamarhi for which agreements were subsequently entered into for different blocks of the District, between the petitioner and concerned Block Development Officers variously between 02.09.2013 and 05.09.2013 (Annexure-5 series). It is the claim of the petitioner that after receiving the advances and Proforma (A, B, C, D and E) for various blocks for carrying out the works, the petitioner commenced the works and completed a substantial part of the work and submitted the details in the prescribed Proforma by 28.08.2013 to the concerned Block Development Officer. Based on data collected by the petitioner, the soft copy was to be provided on the Compact Disc (CD) for printing, but before that was done, the impugned order dated 14.09.2013 cancelling the work order was passed and the petitioner was directed to repay the amount of advances received by it. It is further stated that the petitioner has approached the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi for redressal of its grievances in terms of the representation dated 24.10.2013 which is still pending.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the agreements have been cancelled within a short period of less than two weeks by order dated 14.09.2013 and it is conceivable that the petitioner would have collected the data within such time. Moreover, it is submitted on the basis of paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 9 that the agreement of work and expenditure on it would start with the soft copy but since the soft copy itself was not provided to the petitioner, its claim for the work done is not admissible. It is further submitted that there was ample justification for cancellation of the agreements in view of the financial rules requiring the procedure of tender to be followed in respects of works exceeding the value of Rs. 1,00,000/- as in the present case.

4.

Having regard to the stands of the parties, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be met by directing the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi to consider and dispose of the representation dated 24.10.2013 said to have been filed by the petitioner, if still pending, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. The District Magistrate shall examine the claim of the petitioner and grant an opportunity of hearing before disposing of the representation in accordance with law. In case it is found that the petitioner has completed any work in terms of the agreement prior to the cancellation order dated 14.09.2013, he shall ensure that payment to that extent be made to the petitioner without undue delay.

5.

In the meantime, operation of the impugned letter no. 1456 dated 05.12.2013 relating to Sursand Block shall remain stayed until disposal of the petitioner's representation.

6.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

It is an admitted fact that the 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 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.