R.K. Merathia, J. - (1.) MR . Sahni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that though the work in question has been completed in the year 2008 to the tune of Rs. 5,36,892/ -, but the beneficiary committee has been paid only Rs. 2,75,000/ -in advance. He further submitted that representation was made to Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih (Respondent No. 3) with a copy to Block Development Officer, Dhanwar, Giridih (Respondent No. 4), but Petitioner has not received any order passed thereon.
(2.) COUNSEL for the State submitted that in the absence of counter affidavit, he is not in a position to accept or controvert the submissions made by the Petitioner. He further submitted that it is not known whether Petitioner has done the work as alleged and what amount is admittedly payable to him. He further submitted that if any claim of the Petitioner is disputed, no order can be passed in this writ petition. In the circumstances, Petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation before Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. If any amount is found legally payable, the same should be paid to the beneficiary committee. If it is found that the amount claimed/part of it is not payable, the reasons thereof should be communicated. This exercise should be completed as early as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order.
(3.) IT is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the Petitioner. If any claim/part of it is disputed, the Petitioner will be entitled to seek appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court.;