Sanjay Karol, CJ.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):—

(A) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs order/orders direction/directions directing and commanding the respondents authorities to make payment of the admitted dues amount of Rs. 232749.25/- against the supply of 93.15 quintal of rice in the year 2017-18 from the petitioners along with its interest.

(B) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs order/orders direction/directions directing and commanding the respondents authorities for safeguarding the interest of the petitioner on its office bearers any of the ill effects of non-payment of the admitted dues within time i.e. putting inducting the name of the petitioners in the default list of the Bank debarring the office bearers for contesting the Election of the Society.

(C) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs order/orders direction/directions directing and commanding the respondents authorities to insure the smooth functioning of the petitioners societies as the same had badly been effected due to nonpayment of the aforesaid admissible due amount.

(D) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled to on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the instant petition be disposed of exactly in the same terms as contained in judgment dated 14.09.2022 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13024 of 2022, 2022(6) BLJ 78]., titled as M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

No objection to such prayer being allowed.

In the instant case, allegedly, petitioner is not being paid the dues against the supply of 93.15 quintal of rice in the year 2017-18.

Petitioner made repeated requests to the authorities concerned.

There is no response to the petitioner's request.

The dispute still survives and petitioner's request for clearance of dues remains pending.

Well, without going into the merits of the issues, on all counts, the dispute could have been resolved in terms of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011.

In M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution (supra), We had passed the following observations and directions:—

"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