ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

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

“That this writ application is being filed for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropri- ate writ/writs, order/ orders, direction/ directions for commanding the respondent to release the amount with interest on panel rate so deducted from the bill of peti- tioner for completion of different repairing, oiling, greasing, spraying, painting etc. to Ballet Box during Gram Panchayat Election, 2011 under different Blocks of Samastipur District (herein after referred to as the district).

This writ application is also being filled for other re- liefs as well. The petitioner and one another were en- gaged for repairing, oiling, greasing, spraying, painting etc. to Ballet Box during Gram Panchayat Election, 2011 under different Blocks of Samastipur District. The District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, Samastipur issued work order in favour of the peti- tioner and one another company vides memo no.152 dt.28.01.2011 whereby and where under both the com- panies allotted Ten Blocks work each mentioned therein in the work order. After completion of the work, the bill was prepared and submitted for release of amount but the respondents have deducted about Ru- pees 4.50 Lacs(Rupees Four Lacs and fifty thousand only) from the original bill of the petitioner as also the lesser rate than so paid in other districts of the State of Bihar for repairing, oiling, greasing, spraying, painting etc. to Ballet Box during Gram Panchayat Election 2011. Even though another agency within the district, those have allotted the similar works of ten other Blocks within the district, have paid higher rate from the petitioner after order passed by this Hon'ble Court dt.02.05.2014 in C.W.J.C.No. 23/2014.The petitioner submitted his several applications for payment of his dues at least at the rate which has been paid to the simi- larly situated person who have allotted same works of ten other blocks of the district along with the petitioner. The petitioner personally visited the office of the re- spondents time and again and at last submitted his last representation vide representation dt.13.07.2022 before the respondent no.3 for release of his dues but in vain. The officials are uttering that without order of the Hon'ble Court, the dues of the petitioner will be not re-

leased.”

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 release of Rs.4.50 lacs from the original bill of the petitioner which has been de-

ducted by the respondents 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 p