Harindra Kumar Pathak aged about 57 years son of Late Ramjee Pathak (J.E.Minor Irrigation v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, P.O. + P.S. and
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5071 of 2019 Harindra Kumar Pathak aged about 57 years son of Late Ramjee Pathak (J.E.Minor Irrigation Division, Ramgarh) residing at P.O. + P.S. and District Ramgarh. Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, P.O. + P.S. and District Sahebganj. 3. The Executive Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Sahebganj, P.O. + P.S. and District Sahebganj. 4. Superintending Engineer, Rural Development, Special Circle, Dumka, P.O. + P.S. and District Dumka. 5. The Chief Engineer, Development, Special Zone Ranchi, FFP Building, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 6. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, (Rural Work Affair), FFP Building, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi … … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents 11/16th July 2024
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Harendra Kumar Mahato, Advocate Mrs. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate --- 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “(A) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) commanding the respondents not to make adjustment of Rs. 9,80,766.00/- as against the scheme of construction of P.H.C. Building at Srikund Under Barharwa Block, under District Sahibganj, Boucher and Bill of the same has been submitted before the respondents as early as on 20.11.2014.
Decision
And further the order dated 19.10.2019 and 27.11.2019 be quashed and set- aside as the same are arbitrary, illegal and beyond the facts of the case and during pendency of the writ petition the said order may not be operated, And (B) Any other order/order(s)/Direction(s) upon the respondents as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter relates to construction of Primary Health Centre which the petitioner completed in the 1 year 2014 itself while he was posted at Rural Development, Department Special Division, Sahibganj. He submits that an advance amount was given to the petitioner for the execution of the work as the work was being executed departmentally and he had ultimately submitted bill of Rs. 9,80,766/- and when the present writ petition was filed on 20.09.2019, a letter No. 996 dated 19.10.2019 was issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Sahibganj stating that the bill to the extent of Rs. 3,47,877/- was only approved and the remaining Rs. 6,32,691/- was still pending as advance with the petitioner and was to be adjusted in the salary of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that during the pendency of this writ petition another letter No. 1093 dated 27.11.2019 has been issued wherein the petitioner has been directed to deposit the aforesaid remaining amount of Rs. 6,32,691/- through demand draft. 4. The learned counsel submits that the work was completed way back in 2014 and some inspection was conducted in 2019 and it was only in 2019 a decision was taken with regard to the advance amount of Rs. 9,80,568/- during the pendency of the writ petition only to deprive the petitioner of his rights. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that upon verification, the amount of Rs. 3,47,877/- was only found admissible and the remaining amount has been rejected. However, it appears from the records of this case that the rejection has taken place only after the filing of the present writ petition. 6. The learned counsel has also submitted that the work was to be completed in 2012 itself but the petitioner had commenced the work in 2014 and then completed in 2014 itself . 7. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no illegality in commencing and completing the work in 2014. Had there being any illegality, the entire amount would have been rejected. He submits that otherwise also, the order to deposit the Rs. 6,32,691/- has been passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner is being victimized only on account of filing of the present writ petition. 2 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the petitioner was given an advance to the extent of Rs. 9,80,568.00 for construction of Primary Health Centre departmentally; the petitioner had submitted a bill of Rs. 9,80,766/- way back in 2014, but only in 2019, his claim to the extent of Rs. 3,47,877/- was accepted and the remaining amount of Rs. 6,32,691/- has been rejected and the petitioner has been directed to deposit the remaining amount. Apparently, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and the fact remains that inspection in connection with the construction was done in 2019 after the present writ petition was filed and the impugned action has been taken after filing of the present writ petition. 9. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the matter is required to be looked into by the respondent No. 5 who shall consider the grievance of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also to the concerned persons who were involved during the execution of the work particularly the signatory of Annexure-1 to the writ petition which gives the details of vouchers against 13th on A/C Bill for Const. of P.H.C. Building at Srikund Under Barharwa Block, Dist-Sahibganj. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent No. 5 along with a copy of the writ records and a copy of this order. 11. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No. 5 shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order as aforesaid within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation. 12. The reasoned order be communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address to be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself. 13. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 3