- (1.) THIS writ petition was preferred by the petitioner for commanding upon the respondents to make payment of admitted dues as per the revised estimate sent by the concerned authorities as contained in sanctioned letter no. 2(30)/84/2688 dated 2nd June, 1988 amounting to a sum of Rs. 3,09,740/ as according to the petitioner there was no dispute about the completion of construction work relating to modernization and development of IILM, Kanke, Ranchi, Sub Head; raising of compound wall and other works as per the agreement referred to in paragraph 1 of the writ petition.
(2.) THE respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit wherein it has specifically been stated that the work in question for modernization and development of I.I.L.M., Ranchi PhaseII SH: was allotted to the petitioner after tender vide Agreement No. 51/RCD/8586, which the petitioner had failed to complete within the tender amount of Rs. 83,660.82/. Finally the petitioner was found to complete the work in the month of November, 1987 during which raised six bills and the respondents have also paid the same which are furnished by way of Chart, are as follows: Sl.No. Bill No. Date of Payment/M.B.No. Amount of Bill 01. 281/198586 31031986 8425/ 698/RCD/P6&7 02. 54/198687 06081986 34185/ 698/RCD/P23 03. 151/198687 17101986 39189/ 698/RCD/P39 04. 194/198687 29121986 33647/ 698/RCD/P62763 05. 19/198788 15.071987 8885/ 698/RCD/P78 06. 100/198788 27111987 34069/ 698/RCD/9596 Total amount 158400 Photocopies of the bills are annexed as AnnexureB Series. It is further stated that after full completion of the work as allotted to the petitioner and measurement and after adjusting value of material supplied, finally on 27.11.1987 against the final bill amount of Rs. 34069/ ( net amount Rs. 22252.30p after deducting all statutory dues) had been paid to the petitioner. The respondents have categorically stated that they have paid total amount of Rs. 158400/ which is the final bill for the work completed by the petitioner as per measurement book and as such he is not entitled for any further bill amount and all the bills amount have paid to him long back i.e. in the year 198687. Accordingly, the respondents have completely refuted the case of the petitioner that his bills are admitted. Moreover ,it is stated that the writ petition has been filed after 17 years of completion of work and the writ petition is therefore fit to be dismissed. No rejoinder to the said affidavit has been filed and no one appears on behalf of the petitioner to refute the said averments.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that the petition is not only grossly delayed but also the respondents have completely denied that any dues of the petitioner are outstanding and admitted and that too for work completed in the year 1997, I find there is no merit in the writ petition, accordingly it is dismissed.;