Sri Rajendra Sharma vs The State Of Bihar and Ors

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16444 of 2018
======================================================
Sri Rajendra Sharma S/o Late Bako Sharma, R/o Mohalla- Dan Nagar, Ward
No.-3, Post and P.O.- Khagaria, Distt- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, R.W.D., Bihar
2. The Additional Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Bihar Rural Work
Development Bailey Road, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
3. The Secretary, Government of Bihar, Rural Works Department, Bihar
Government, Bihar.
4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Department, Works Division, Patna.
5. The Chief Engineer-2, Rural Works Department, Bhagalpur, Harding Road,
Barack-2, Patna.
6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay -GA 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-09-2026
1. The petitioner has filed the Writ petition
for the following reliefs:
“For a direction to the
respondent authorities that in
consonance of the Contract Agreement
no.- 26-F2/2006-07 which has been
executed by the petitioner to the
satisfaction of the respondent
authorities, the petitioner be paid a sum
of Rs.14,58,297/= along with interest as
a refund amount for the bitumen under

Patna High Court CWJC No.16444 of 2018 dt.16-09-2026
2/7
Bitumen Price Neutralization policy as
petitioner has spent this much amount
over and above the agreed rate.
That the petitioner prays for
any other relief or reliefs which the
petitioner is entitled to in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. The brief facts culled out of the Writ
petition are that the petitioner being a registered
contractor, was awarded the work of strengthening
and widening the Beldaur-Sakrohar Road under
NABARD Scheme-4515, pursuant to an open
tender, and an agreement bearing No. 26-F2/2006-
07 was executed between the parties. The work
was completed within the extended period granted
by the respondent authorities, and all contractual
dues, except the amount towards Bitumen Price
Neutralization, were paid to the petitioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that,
under the policy dated 24.09.2009, he was entitled
to reimbursement of the increase in the price of
bitumen, over and above the sanctioned rate. His
claim of Rs.14,58,297/- was verified and recorded

Patna High Court CWJC No.16444 of 2018 dt.16-09-2026
3/7
in the Measurement Book in the year 2015.
Despite repeated correspondence by the
departmental authorities, including Memo dated
15.07.2017, and legal notice dated 03.05.2018, the
said amount has not been paid. The petitioner has
also brought on record by way of supplementary
affidavit that an earlier legal notice dated
24.05.2017 which was served upon the
respondents regarding the claim, but no effective
action was taken.
4. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the amount of Rs. 1,58,297
is an admitted due for the ascertained contract
and there is no dispute regarding the execution or
completion of the work. It is further submitted that
the respondents cannot withhold the admitted
legitimate dues of the petitioner for an indefinite
period and that the petitioner is also entitled to
appropriate interest for the delayed payment.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the respondents. The Learned counsel for
the respondents submits that the petitioner's claim

Patna High Court CWJC No.16444 of 2018 dt.16-09-2026
4/7
for Bitumen Price Neutralization is not
maintainable. It is contended that the agreement
No. 26-F2/2006-07 was executed on 21.03.2007,
whereas the Bitumen Price Neutralization Policy
was introduced vide letter dated 24.09.2009 and,
therefore, the said policy has no application to the
petitioner's contract.
6. The Learned counsel for the
respondents further submits that the work was
originally required to be completed by 28.02.2008,
but extension of time was granted vide Memo
dated 27.10.2011, subject to subject to condition
that no additional claim would be maintainable on
account of such extension of time. Since, the
petitioner has accepted the said condition he
cannot subsequently claim any additional amount
beyond the terms of the agreement.
7. The Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the claim of
Rs.14,58,297/- towards Bitumen Price
Neutralization is not payable and prayed to dismiss
the Writ petition as being devoid of merits.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16444 of 2018 dt.16-09-2026
5/7
8. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondents. Having considered the rival
submissions and the materials on record, this Court
finds that the petitioner is entitled to the relief
sought.
9. The agreement was executed on
01.03.2007 with the stipulated period of
completion up to 28.02.2008, however, the work
could not be completed within the original period
and was ultimately completed on 24.05.2011 after
an extension of time which was granted by the
competent authority. The extension was granted
by the respondents only after considering the
relevant circumstances, and the same cannot, by
itself, defeat a claim that is otherwise payable
under the departmental policy.
10. Further, the Executive Engineer,
Rural Works Department, Khagaria, by letter dated
15.07.2017, specifically considered the petitioner's
claim for payment of the increased price of
bitumen and requested the competent authority to

Patna High Court CWJC No.16444 of 2018 dt.16-09-2026
6/7
allot an amount of Rs.14,58,297/- for making
payment to the petitioner, in terms of the
departmental letter dated 24.09.2009. This
communication, along with the measurement and
departmental records relied upon by the petitioner,
substantially supports his claim.
11. The objection of the respondents
that the Bitumen Price Neutralization Policy dated
24.09.2009 is not applicable merely because the
agreement was executed earlier cannot be
accepted, in the facts of the present case,
particularly when the departmental authorities
themselves subsequently considered the
petitioenr's claim and sought allocation of the
specific amount for payment to him.
12. This Court also finds that the
petitioner has been pursuing his claim since 2015
and, despite the departmental correspondence and
legal notices, the amount has remained unpaid for
several years. The respondents have not placed
any satisfactory justification for withholding the
said amount.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16444 of 2018 dt.16-09-2026
7/7
13. In view of the above, this Court is
of the considered view that the petitioner has
established his entitlement for the amount of
Rs.14,58,297/-.
14. Accordingly, the Writ petition is
allowed.
15. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.09.2026
Transmission Date