JUDGMENT :

The present case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of direction upon the State respondents for making Payment of balance dues of bill to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,36,57,087/- in relation to the work done by it as per the Agreement No. SBD-01/2016-17 executed between the Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division No. 5, Jamshedpur (the respondent no. 6) and the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the State respondents to take decision on the representations of the petitioner along with final bill submitted by it after final measurement done by the respondent no.6. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing letter no. 653 dated 31.07.2019 issued by the respondent no. 6 to the extent of initiating any coercive proceeding against it, if any. The petitioner has further prayed for staying the proceeding instituted against it by respondent no. 7 in O.A No. 70 of 2019 for recovery of outstanding dues against the cash credit facility for various government constructions which was enhanced in view of the Agreement No. SBD-01/2016-17, but the same could not be repaid due to non-payment of its bills by the respondent no. 6.

3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand (respondent no.3) had floated a tender with regard to construction of intake Sump house, construction of pump house, construction of Head Regulator, supply and erection of Water Rising Pipe Line to VAT-1 & VAT II, construction of supplying, installation and commissioning of HSCF Pumps Set Motors and Accessories & construction of Operator Room and Boundary Wall for OL-38, Ex-Km. 85.47 of CLMC. The petitioner participated in the said tender process and submitted its bid which was accepted by the respondent no. 3 and a communication for allotment of work was sent to the petitioner vide letter No. 209 dated 10.02.2016 issued under signature of the respondent no. 4 with a direction to complete the process by depositing the performance security for an amount equivalent to Rs.30.48 Lacs in favour of the respondent no.- 6 and execution of contract document with the said respondent. The respondent no. 6 vide letter no. 184 dated 16.03.2016 also made similar communication to the petitioner regarding allotment of work by depositing the amount of performance security which was 2% of cost of work amounting Rs.30.48 Lacs. The petitioner furnished the requisite security and entered into a contract with the respondent no. 6 for the said work. The work order was accordingly issued by the respondent no. 6 vide letter no. 219 dated 06.04.2016 itself. As per the agreement no. SBD-01/2016-17, the same was valued at Rs. 15,23,76,558.93 and time for completion of the work was fixed as 730 days i.e till 05.04.2018. The respondent no. 6 issued letter no. 246 dated 11.04.2016 wherein he asked the petitioner for ensuring the compliance regarding Construction Programme, Insurance and Quality Control as per the said agreement which was replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 02.06.2016. The said project involved laying of Ductile Iron Pipes of 500 mm diameter (Class K9, Quantity-5156 meters) and Ductile Iron Pipe of 1000 mm diameter (Class K9, Quantity-3725 meters). These pipes were valued at around Rs.9,73,87,348.90 which formed a major part of the total project cost of Rs.15,23,76,558.93. Under Clause 11 of the SBD, the said pipes were required for the project subject to exemption of excise duty for which a certificate from the project authority was required to be issued i.e. from the respondent no. 5. The price quoted for D.I. pipes were excluding the excise duty.

The petitioner made application before the respondent no. 6 to forward the same to respondent no. 5 for issuance of PAC (Project Authority Certificate). The respondent no.6 forwarded the same vide his letter