SANJAY KAROL, CJ.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):–

“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing/commanding the concerned respondents to pay the outstanding bill to be exact Rs. 21,67,056/- (TWENTYONE LAKH SIXTY-SEVEN THOUSAND AND FIFTY-SIX) in favour of petitioner firm for the work done in Krishi Pradarshani, Sonepur Mela in the year 2017-18.

(ii) This Hon'ble Court is further prayed to adjudicate and hold that the payment of the petitioner has been held up by the respondent authorities for no fault on his behalf.

(iii) For any other reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

3. We notice that large number of writ petitions are being preferred before this Court where despite representations made/claims set out, no action is being taken by the authorities in either deciding the representation(s) or settling the claims of the parties who have undertaken work on the asking of Government Officers/officials or remitting payments in relation thereto. Resultantly, this Court is flooded with such litigation(s).

4. We have come across several petitions where the State has availed the services of private citizens/entities, be it for hiring vehicles for the use at the time of elections/official work; setting up tents and infrastructure at the time of elections or special fairs (Melas), as is the case in hand; or for having executed public works which strictly do not fall within the adjudicatory process of ambit and scope of the provisions of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008.

5. We also notice that even in those cases where the parties are governed by the Dispute Resolution Mechanism, provided in terms of the agreement(s) or statutes, parties are forced to litigate endlessly before different legal foras, be it this Court or the statutory Tribunals.

6. We see no reason as to why the respondent State does not apply and take recourse to the mechanism provided under its own policy termed as the “Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011”. We also see no reason as to why the respondent State does not resort to the provisions of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

7. Unfortunately, parties are made to run from pillar to post, and as we have noticed, it is only where the officers of the State are interested, be it for whatever reason and consideration, that case of few favoured individuals are settled and issues resolved, leaving the significant majority to litigate.

8. The instant case, in our considered view, is the best example where the officers and the officials of the State are found to have been lacking in adhering to the litigation policy, even worse, responding to the petitioner’s request made in terms of written communications. For the purposes of setting up a stall as part of Krishi Pradarshani, during the Sonepur Mela, petitioner’s services were availed. He erected a tent and submitted his bill for which only part payment was released.

9. Petitioner claims the outstanding amount to be Rs.21,67,056. The District Agriculture Officer, Saran, Chapra, the concerned officer, has already forwarded favourably, request for release of the amount, to the higher authorities. This is vide communication dated 17.08.2019. Unfortunately, the superior officers slept over the matter and despite petitioner’s repeated request and reminders, and the last one being on 01.07.2022 (Annexure-3), no action stands taken, forcing initiation of current proceedings.

10. The Litigation Policy does state that–

“1.1 (b) Responsible litigant means:

a. That litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating.”…

… “1.2 This Policy is also based on the recognition that it is the responsibility of the Government to protect the rights of the citizens, to respect fundamental rights and that those in charge of the conduct of Government litigation should never forget these basic principles.”

“1.3 The