R.K. Merathia, J. - (1.) ACCORDING to Mr. R. K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in spite of repeated requests, no decision has been taken on the 6th bill submitted by the Petitioner. He further submitted that as the work is still pending, the claim of Petitioner is not time barred.
(2.) ON the other hand, State counsel submitted that the 6th bill is denied and disputed as the work was not as per the specification. He further pointed out that the 6th bill was submitted after about 2 years. Thus, it appears that there is dispute with regard to the money claim of the Petitioner which cannot be decided in this writ petition. However, there is nothing to show that any decision was taken with regard to 6th bill by the concerned Respondent, whether it should rejected wholly or partly and what further action, if any should be taken in the matter.
(3.) IN the circumstances, Petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation before Respondent No. 4 -The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, (REO), Work Division, Godda. If any claim of Petitioner is found undisputed and payable, it should be paid. However, if it is found that the claim/part of it is not legally payable, the reasons thereof should be communicated to the Petitioner. This exercise should be completed within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.;