ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 23-01-2023 The petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

“(i) For issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents specially respondent no. 3 and 4 to pay the parcel handling bill from September, 2014 to May, 2015 amounting Rs. 4,54,325/- for the work and ser- vices rendered by the petitioner pursuance to tender work orders/letters of acceptance which is remain dues with the respondents and could not be paid despite sev-

eral representation to the respondents authorities.

(ii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents specially respondent no. 3 and 4 for payment of security deposit amount Rs. 55,000/- ap-

proximately deducted from the bills of the agreements from 1.06.2012 to 31.05.2015 for the parcel handling work and services done by the petitioner pursuance to work orders/ letters of acceptance which is remain dues with the respondents and could not be paid despite sev-

eral representation to the respondents authorities.

(iii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents specially respondent no. 1 and 3 for payment of 10% parcel handling bills which usually paid from zonal office, Hazipur for the period April, 2004 to 15.07.2005 (Rs. 1,25,354.80), 21.11.2005 to 20.11.2008 (Rs.1,51,686.30), 16.12.2008 to 15.12.2011 (Rs.1,00,526.80), 1.06.2012 to 31.05.2015 (Rs. 1,10,692.80), 1.06.2015 to 31.05.2018 (Rs. 1,66,624) of Gaya Railway Station and for the period 11.10.2008 to 10.10.2011 (Rs. 24,411.90) of Dehri-on-Sone which are remain dues with the respondents and could not be paid despite several representation to the respondents authorities.

(iv) For issuance of a writ of mandamus for command- ing the respondents to pay the statutory interest 18% from the abovementioned dues amount of the petitioner which could not be paid to him due to arbitrary and cal-

lous attitude of the respondents authorities.

(v) For issuance of any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper of the facts and circumstances of the case and for which the petitioner may entitle.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the in-

stant petition be disposed of exactly in the same terms as con- tained 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 direction to the re-

spondents specially respondent nos. 3 and 4 to pay the dues with statutory interest of 18% for the work and services ren- dered by the petitioner pursuant to the tender work orders/let- ters of acceptance as despite several requests and representa- tions to the authority the same has not been paid to the peti-

tioner.

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