Chinta Mani Pandey vs The State Of Bihar and Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23314 of 2018
======================================================
Chinta Mani Pandey Son of Vishwanath Pandey Resident of Village -
Chanayan Bandh, Police Station- Majhauliya District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Secretary, Planning and Development Department, Government of
Bihar, patna.
4. The executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization Works
Division-2 Bagaha, West Champaran
5. The Assistant engineer, Local Area Engineering Orgaanization, Work,
Division-2 Bagah, West Champara
6. The Juniour Engineer, L.A.E.O. Work Division-2 Bagaha, West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.-7, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar -AAG 4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-09-2026
1. The writ petition is filed for the
following reliefs:
“(i) To make the payment of Rs.
3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) which is
due as the work performed by the
petitioner on the oral order of the
Executive Engineer, L.A.Ε.Ο., Works
Division-2, Bagaha, West Champaran
(Respondent No.4).
(ii) To make the payment of
above mentioned dues with the statutory

Patna High Court CWJC No.23314 of 2018 dt.07-09-2026
2/6
interest.
(iii) To any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioner is found entitled in
the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The brief facts culled out of the Writ
petition are that the petitioner entered into an
agreement with Respondent No.4 for construction
of a Plain Cement Concrete road from Forest I.B.,
Naurangia to the house of Kishori Mahto in village
Naurangia under Ram Nagar Block, West
Champaran.
3. During execution of the work, the then
Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering
Organization, Works Division-2, Bagaha, orally
directed him to execute additional work beyond
the work, covered under the agreement. Acting
upon the said direction, the petitioner completed
the additional work.
4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that from a perusal of Annexure-1 and
Annexure-3, it would appear that the petitioner had
executed work, in excess of the work contemplated

Patna High Court CWJC No.23314 of 2018 dt.07-09-2026
3/6
under the agreement. Despite completion of the
additional work, payment of the amount due,
towards such work has not been made.
5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner executed the additional
work pursuant to the oral direction of the then
Executive Engineer, Respondent No.4. Having
obtained the benefit of the work so executed, the
respondents cannot refuse payment to the
petitioner, and therefore, contended that the
petitioner is entitled to payment of Rs.3,00,000/-
for the additional work actually executed by him.
6. The Learned counsel lastly submits that
the respondents' failure to make payment is
unjustified and, accordingly, prays for a direction to
the respondents to pay the aforesaid amount along
with applicable statutory interest.
7. A detailed counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of the Respondents. Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the petitioner has
already been paid the entire amount payable
under the agreement and his claim of

Patna High Court CWJC No.23314 of 2018 dt.07-09-2026
4/6
Rs.3,00,000/- is towards alleged extra work.
8. The Learned counsel for the respondents
further submits that there was no written order or
sanctioned estimate authorising any additional
work involving financial liability. The petitioner,
therefore, cannot claim payment merely on the
basis of an alleged oral direction.
9. It is also submitted by the Learned
counsel for the respondents that the documents
relied upon by the petitioner do not establish that
any extra work, beyond the scope of the
agreement, was duly authorised or sanctioned by
the competent authority. The measurement and
payment made by the department were confined
to the work covered by the agreement.
10. The Learned counsel for the
respondents accordingly submits that, in absence
of any valid authorisation or sanctioned estimate
for the alleged extra work, no enforceable right to
payment has accrued in favour of the petitioner.
11. The Learned counsel for the
respondents in light of the above facts prays for

Patna High Court CWJC No.23314 of 2018 dt.07-09-2026
5/6
dismissal of the Writ petition, as devoid of merits.
12. Heard Learned counsel for the
petitioner and Learned counsel for the respondents
and perused the materials available on record.
13. The principal claim of the petitioner is
for the payment towards the alleged extra work
said to have been performed on the oral direction
of the then Executive Engineer. However, the
petitioner himself admits that the alleged
additional work was executed, pursuant to an oral
order.
14. It is not in dispute that the original
contractual work has already been paid for. The
petitioner has not been able to demonstrate from
the materials on record that any written order or
sanctioned estimate was issued by the competent
authority for the alleged extra work involving
financial liability upon the respondents.
15. In absence of such authorisation or
sanctioned estimate, the petitioner cannot claim
an enforceable right for the payment of the alleged
additional amount merely on the basis of an oral

Patna High Court CWJC No.23314 of 2018 dt.07-09-2026
6/6
direction.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the
present Writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ petition
is dismissed.
17. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.09.2026
Transmission Date