ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

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

“That this application is being filed against highly wrongful, illegal and arbitrary conduct of the respondent NHAI who for the purpose of execution of their works of six laning of Varanasi Aurangabad section of NH-2 entered into agreement with respondent Isolux Corsan Ltd. and Soma Enterprises Ltd. and allowed them to enter into 3rd party agreement for execution of different works and even made payment of amount to the petitioners for the works executed by the petitioner Sub-contractors, but unfortunately the NHAI cancelled the agreement with Isolux Corsan Ltd. and even though the petitioner have completed the work of 21.53 lacs of rupees related to six laning of Varanasi Aurangabad section of NH-2 under the supervision and direction of the respondent NHAI they are being denied payment. The petitioner further prays for directing the District Magistrate, Kaimur, Rohtas and to immediately take steps to protect the property of Isolux Corsan Ltd. kept at Sasaram, Kudra, Dehri and Aurangabad, since at the instance of SDO, Mohaniya, SDO, Sasaram and SDO Aurangabad and SDO Dehri highly valuable property is being subjected to loot at their instance and the poor petitioner who is to be paid are being made to suffer.”

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 direction to the respondents for payment of dues of Rs. 21.53 lacs to him for the work done in connection with six laning of Varanasi Aurangabad section of NH-2(length 192-400KM) from the security deposit of respondent Isolux Corsan Ltd. or other deposit as despite several requests and representations to the authority concerned the same has not been paid to the petitioner.

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, Chap