Surajdeo Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned G.P.-V appearing for the respondent-State of

Jharkhand and Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the Letter No.1730 dated 20.12.2013 as well as Letter No.55 dated 11.01.2014 as

contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the District of Gumla, from the office of Executive Engineer, Road

Construction Department, Works Division Gumla (Respondent No.4), a tender was allotted to the petitioner bearing Agreement No.01F2/2007-08 for

special repair work etc. in Sisai Basiya Road for the amount of Rs.73,88,970/-. He further submits that as per the agreement, the aforesaid

construction work was to be started on 23.07.2007 and was to be completed till 22.12.2007. He further submits that the petitioner completed the

construction work on 21.12.2007 and the concerned Junior Engineer of the department took measurement of the completed work on 21.12.2007.

He further submits that as the work was completed on 21.12.2007, the petitioner was paid the dues bills by the office of the respondent no.4 through

a/c payee cheques on 20.02.2008, 15.03.2008 and 17.03.2008. He further submits that as the work was completed within time there was no

requirement of any extension of time as such the petitioner was paid the amount in question.

He further submits that although the work was completed on 21.12.2007, but after lapse of six years from the date of completion of aforesaid work

the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Works Division, Gumla (respondent no.4) vide his letter dated 1730 dated 20.12.2013

intimated to the petitioner that the audit team of Accountant General during their audit held between 28.11.2008 to 06.12.2008 has put objection in the

audit report for not deducting the 10% amount in the bill for extension of time and on the basis of the audit report submitted by Audit team, the

Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Ranchi has passed an order for said deduction.

He further submits that by way of the said letter, the petitioner was asked show cause as to why the 10% amount may not be deducted. Vide letter

dated 11.01.2014 issued by the Executive Engineer, Road Division, Gumla the petitioner has been intimated for recovery of Rs.7,38,897/- from the

pending bills of other contract works i.e. with regard to the agreement no.01F2 for the year 2012-13. He submits that the amount in question to the

tune of Rs.7,38,897/- has been deducted from the deed of the subsequent agreement.

He further submits that the first agreement was already completed and the measurement was also done within time, thereafter, the payment has been

effected to the petitioner.

He further submits that the authority has got no jurisdiction to deduct the amount from another agreement when there is no allegation with regard to

the second agreement.

Per contra, Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned G.P.-V appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that in the audit report it was found that the

illegality has been done that’s why the authority concerned has rightly deducted the amount.

Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 by referring to the paragraph 8 and 9 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of

respondent no.2 submits that the auditor has found on the basis of documents produced by the auditee, has merely pointed out the illegality and

irregularity in the Inspection Report.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the measurement has already been done earlier by the competent authority of

the Department and in pursuance thereto the payment in question was made to the petitioner with regard to the work done for the year 2007-08

whereas the deduction in question was made from the subsequent work done by the petitioner for the year 2012-13, which is against the well settled

principles of law. Accordingly, the impugned letters cannot survive and are hereby quashed. Consequently the petitioner is entitled for the

consequential relief, therefore, the authority concerned will act accordingly.

The concerned authorities are directed to refund the amount in question within a period of eight weeks, failing which, the respondents shall pay

interest @ 4% per annum.

It is open to the authority concerned, if so desired and if any illegality is there, they may proceed in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.