ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

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

“i. For issuance of direction to the respondent authori- ties to pay the admitted dues of the petitioner of Rs. 1,92,711/- with respect to Agreement No. 12FE/2006- 07, work namely 3x10x0x8 Span RCC Bridge at Chhaurahiya River from Badka Koirala to Mojahida under (CMDDC) RS BP.

ii. For further direction to the respondent authorities to release the Security deposit and NAC.

iii. The petitioner further prays for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to pay adequate interest upon the aforementioned dues of the petitioner.

iv. For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be deemed entitled to.”

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 admit-

ted dues of Rs.1,92,711/- with respect to Agreement No.12FE/2006-07, work namely 3x10x0x8 Span RCC Bridge at Chhaurahiya River from Badka Koirala to Mojahida under (CMDDC) RS BP.

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 dated 17.08.2019. Unfortunately, the superior officers slept over the matter and despite petitioner’s repeated request and reminders, and the last one being on 01.07.2022 (Annexure-3), no action stands taken, forcing initiation of current proceedings. 10. The Litigation Policy does state that-

“1.1 (b) Responsible litigant means:

a. That litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating.”…

… “1.2 This Policy is also based on the recognition that it is the responsibility of the Government to protect the rights of the citizens, to respect fundamental rights and that those in charge of the conduct of Government li