IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11755 of 2021 ======================================================

M/s Brijnandan Singh through its Partner Brijnandan Singh, aged about 61 years, Male, Son of Late Mangru Singh, Resident of Village Lahthan, P.S.

Agiaon Bazar, District - Bhojpur, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Engineer in Chief (Head Quarters), Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Chief Engineer, Flood Control and Drainage, Water Resources Department, Patna, District Patna, Bihar.

5. The Executive Engineer, Flood Control and Drainage Division, Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG 4 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 15-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(S):-

“1. That this is an application on behalf of the petitioner above named seeking issuance of appropriate writ, rule or direction commanding upon the Respondents to release the amount of Rs. 53,75,537.00 (Fifty Three Lacs Seventy Five Thousands Five Hundred Thirty Seven only) along with the interest of the statutory rate along which has been deducted under the heads of security deposit from the various Running Account Bills in connection with the Protection Work for Making Lake cum Anti Erosion Work from Railway Bridge to Jail Bridge at Sipah Bridge to Maghara Chhilka in Panchane River in Nalanda District corresponding to Agreement No.

09 SBD/FCCD/ 2016- 17.”

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 CWJC 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 has prayed for release of amount of Rs. 53,75,537/- with interest which has been deducted under the heads of security deposit.

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