ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 02-01-2023 Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter No. 598/Jhanjharpur dated 30.09.2019 whereby the respondent Executive Engi- neer, Western Kosi Canal Division, Jhanjharpur has er- roneously directed the petitioner to extend and submit the Bank guarantee for the work which has already been directed to be foreclosed.

(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus di- recting the respondents to release the amount in favour of the petitioner which comes after accounting of the work done by the petitioner against the Agreement No.

01SBD/14-15 for the residual work of E/W and struc- tures in Jhanjharpur Branch Canal and System between R.D. 41.00 to 138.00 and the amount already paid to the petitioner.

(iii) For the issuance of the writ in the nature of man- damus directing the respondents to release the Bank Guarantee which has been submitted to the respondents against the above mentioned work which has been di-

rected to be foreclosed by the respondents themselves.

(iv) For any other relief or reliefs, order or orders, di- rection or directions for which the petitioner is found to be entitled.”

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, pursuant to an adver-

tisement, established the Layer Poultry Farm under Integrated Poultry Scheme for the financial year 2016-17 after taking loan from the bank, however, despite several requests and represen- tations to the authority concerned (Annexure-9 Series), subsidy 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 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 is vide communication