Court’s Decision:
The Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking payment of dues for public works executed in 2008-09. The Court directed the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 17.08.2017, which sought recovery of ₹2,90,131 (inclusive of bank interest), within three months of receipt of the Court’s order. Importantly, the Court did not enter into the merits of the dispute and confined its relief to ensuring procedural justice through proper disposal of the pending representation.
Facts:
The petitioner, a contractor, claimed payment for civil work done under three tender contracts issued during 2008–2009 by the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation. The work was reportedly completed, but the payment of ₹2,90,131, which included the principal amounts of ₹1,41,410, ₹72,621, and ₹76,100 along with accrued bank interest, remained unpaid.
Despite making several attempts, the petitioner’s grievance was not redressed. Finally, a formal representation was submitted on 17.08.2017 to the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner then approached the High Court through a writ petition praying for a direction to compel the authorities to clear the pending payment and consider his representation.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to release the unpaid amount for works executed in 2008–2009.
- Whether the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, had failed in his duty by not acting on the representation dated 17.08.2017.
- Whether the Court should direct the disposal of the representation, without adjudicating the substantive merits of the claim.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the payment had been pending for over a decade despite the work having been completed in accordance with the tenders issued in 2008. The authorities failed to respond to the representation dated 17.08.2017 submitted to the Divisional Commissioner. The counsel clarified that the petitioner was not seeking immediate adjudication on the quantum of dues but a direction that the Commissioner consider the representation and pass an appropriate decision after hearing all parties.
Respondent’s Arguments:
Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, representing the Municipal Corporation officials, filed a counter affidavit contesting the petitioner’s claims. However, crucially, they did not produce any documentary evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner’s representation had been acted upon or disposed of. No official response or decision to the representation dated 17.08.2017 was brought on record. This inaction played a pivotal role in the Court’s ultimate decision.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court invoked the principles of procedural fairness and accountability of public officials. Although no specific statutes were analyzed, the judgment rested on the legal expectation that when a citizen approaches the authorities with a written grievance, especially one pertaining to financial dues from public works, the representation must be considered in accordance with law and disposed of within a reasonable time.
The Court avoided entering into the merits of the claim, likely due to the disputed nature of the work execution or the lack of material evidence on record regarding the quality, completion, or certification of the said works. Instead, it focused on administrative propriety — i.e., whether the representation made by the petitioner had been decided or not.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court did not cite or rely upon any prior judgments or binding precedents. However, its approach aligns with established judicial practice where courts refrain from acting as adjudicators of disputed facts in service or contractual claims involving the state unless procedural safeguards have been clearly violated. The Court limited its ruling to ensuring that the petitioner’s representation is addressed in accordance with law, a well-settled relief granted in similar writ matters involving government inaction.
Court’s Reasoning:
Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy reasoned that since no documentary proof was submitted by the respondents indicating that the representation had been decided, the matter warranted judicial intervention — not on the substantive merits but to ensure that the due process of representation disposal was followed.
The Court found it unnecessary to evaluate whether the claimed amount was indeed payable or whether the tenders were properly executed. Instead, it determined that administrative accountability must be upheld by directing the competent authority to take a reasoned decision on the pending representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders.
Conclusion:
The Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 17.08.2017 within three months of receiving a copy of the Court’s order. A hearing must be granted to all affected parties.
The Court explicitly clarified that it was not commenting on the merits of the petitioner’s financial claim and left it open for the appropriate authority to take a lawful and reasoned decision.
Implications:
This ruling reiterates the role of constitutional courts in safeguarding procedural rights when state authorities fail to act on citizen grievances. It reinforces that government officials must decide representations in a time-bound and transparent manner, especially where the dispute pertains to public works and financial dues. The case may provide relief to similarly placed contractors facing bureaucratic delay in payment for legitimate work executed years ago.
FAQs:
Q1. What relief did the Court grant in this case?
The Court directed the Divisional Commissioner to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 17.08.2017 within three months after hearing all relevant parties.
Q2. Did the Court decide whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment claimed?
No. The Court did not go into the merits of the financial claim and restricted its order to the procedural issue of representation disposal.
Q3. Can the petitioner approach the Court again if the representation is rejected?
Yes. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the Commissioner’s decision, he can challenge it before the appropriate forum, including the High Court.