- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent -Board.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Board submits that this Court by passing the order on 3rd November, 2010, has asked the petitioner to put forth his claim before the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi, and the Chairman in turn was directed to take a decision in the matter of payment, in accordance with terms and conditions of the contract within a period of four weeks thereafter. Pursuant to that claim was again laid by the petitioner, but no decision has been taken as yet relating to the payment to the petitioner as some deficiency was found in the project, which has been laid down by the petitioner and therefore some time would be consumed in making assessment of the extent of the deficiency and, therefore, two months further time has been sought through the aforesaid interlocutory application for taking decision in the matter. As against this, Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that APur1P project, a Central Government sponsored project was assigned to the petitioner for augmentation, renovation of the transmission lines in the township of the Catras and Jamtara, which was completed by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the authority two years be, fore and the Board even started drawing power through the newly constructed line. Still payment was not made though under the agreement, payment was to be made, on the pro -rata basis meaning thereby the payment was to be made, time to time on completion of the part of the project but that no, never adhered to when payment was not made to the petitioner, there was no option left with the petitioner but to approach to this Court and this Court after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the petitioner to represent the matter before the Chairman, Jharkhand Electricity Board, who in turn was directed to take a decision within four weeks, but the Chairman has not taken any dec1sion rather is coming forward with an excuse after two years of completion of the project that some deficiency has been found in the project laid down by the petitioner. The said stand does not have any element of bona fide rather an excuse which would be evident from the fact that the Board in its meeting while resolving to stop payment till its verification constituted a committee for verification. The Committee on verifying the project did certifiy that the project has been constructed, in accordance with the specification and the Board is drawing power through the transmission line. On such certificate, even the Chairman took a decision to make payment. Still plea is being taken that some deficiency has been found and hence the plea taken by the Board be rejected out rightly and, there fore, the Board be directed to make payment immediately to the petitioner. '
(3.) IT is not to be adjudicated by this Court as to whether there is any deficiency or not in the project laid down by the petitioner, but this much is clear that entire project is not faulty rather as per the Board fault is limited though it has been denied by the petitioner.;