ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 30-01-2023 Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“I. For directing and commanding the responding. au- thorities for making payment of the work done and suc- cesses fully completed by the petitioner to the satisfac- tion of respondent authorities pursuant to agreement no. 02- SBD/PMGSY 2017-18 FDR for year 2020-21 and 2021-22. (Name of the work- L026-Laverchak Babhantola)II. For further directing and commanding the respondent authorities for making payment of the work done by the petitioner taking into consideration the fact that pursuant to policy decision of the Central Government, rate of GST has been increased from 12% to 18%. (FDR for the year 2020-21 21,22,692, AND for year 2021-22 for construction of road 8,57,723/- FDR-

16,57,00/)

III. For making payment of entire amount of the work done by the petitioner along with penal interest from date it became dues till actual date of payment.

IV. For making payment of cost of litigation taking into consideration the fact that after completion of the work allotted to the petitioner payments have not been made to the petitioner, on one pretext or the other and peti- tioner has been compel to approach before this Hon'ble court.

V. For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled under law in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

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 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13024 of 2022, 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, petitioner seeks payment of Rs.

21,22,692/- FDR for the year 2020-21 and for the year 2021- 2022 for construction of road Rs.8,57,723/- FDR Rs.16,57,00/-

along with the penal interest for the work done by him.

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 Resolu- tion 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 mecha- nism provided under its own policy termed as the “Bi- har State Litigation Policy,2011”. We also see no rea- son as to why the respondent State does not resort to the provisions of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Pro-

cedure, 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 what- ever 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 adher- ing to the litigation policy, even worse, responding to the petitioner’s request made in terms of written com- munications. 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 for- warded favourably, request for release of the amount, to the higher authorities. This