The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, and the provisions of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in resolving disputes and releasing dues.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(S):-

“1. That this is an application on behalf of the petitioner above named seeking issuance of appropriate writ, rule or direction commanding upon the Respondents to release the amount of Rs.53,75,537.00 (Fifty Three Lacs Seventy Five Thousands Five Hundred Thirty Seven only) along with the interest of the statutory rate along which has been deducted under the heads of security deposit from the various Running Account Bills in connection with the Protection Work for Making Lake cum Anti Erosion Work from Railway Bridge to Jail Bridge at Sipah Bridge to Maghara Chhilka in Panchane River in Nalanda District corresponding to Agreement No. 09 SBD/FCCD/ 2016-17.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 CWJC No.13024 of 2022, titled as M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

3. No objection to such prayer being allowed.

4. In the instant case, petitioner has prayed for release of amount of Rs. 53,75,537/-with interest which has been deducted under the heads of security deposit.

5. There is no response to the petitioner’s request. The dispute still survives and petitioner's request for clearance of dues remains pending.

6. 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.

7. 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, 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 t