NAGWALI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dt.29.096.1988 passed by the learned subordinate Judge Ist, Jehabanad in Money Suit No.6 of 1986 dismissing the plaintiff money suit for realization of Rs.1,13,061.40/-.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit claiming Rs.1,13,061.40/- alleging that he entered into agreement with the defendant on 17.03.1979 for repairing the barrage to Sohajana sarpanah for filling of earth in respect of scheme No.49 of 78-79 which was food for work schemes. The plaintiff was to be paid wheat and its transporting charge. The plaintiff started working since 19.03.1979 and received 35 quintals of wheat and its cost for transportation Rs.122.40/- as advance. Thereafter, the plaintiff completed the work on 20.04.1979. The same was measured by Zonal Supervisor of Makhdumpur Block and submitted the report which was finally checked up by defendant No.4 who found the work done by the plaintiff satisfactory. After adjusting the advance, only 301.32 quintals of wheat and Rs.1054.72 as transporting charge remained due to be paid by the defendant. In spite of repeated request, the defendant did not pay the Bill, therefore, the plaintiff filed C.W.J.C. No.1986 of 1984 before the High Court which was withdrawn. Thereafter, petition was filed by the plaintiff before Collector who referred the matter to D.D.C. but D.D.C. refused to make payment on 24.05.1985, then the plaintiff again filed C.W.J.C. No.6069 of 1985 but the High Court permitted to withdraw the writ application directing the plaintiff to file suit, so after serving notice under Section 80 CPC, the suit was filed.

(3.) The defendant-State of Bihar filed written statement denying the service of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. The agreement entered into between plaintiff with the B.D.O. is not legal because food for work scheme did not allow any contractor to perform the work rather it was required to be executed through the Government agency. The work was not done according to the terms and conditions of the agreement and work order. The report was not submitted in prescribed form and the form was not even completed. The same was forged and bogus. Only one day measurement was done, i.e., on 14.06.1979 after completion of the work although, the requirement was that it was to be measured every week. In fact there was no measurement and report was submitted in collusion. No checking was ever done as the pits could not be measured being washed away by rain and flood because the plaintiff made willful delay.