Writ Petition Not Maintainable for Unverified Claims Already Considered Pursuant to Previous Judicial Directions

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s R.K. Electrical and Decorators, was awarded work orders in 2014 and 2015 by the District Magistrate, Begusarai, to provide facilities (lighting, sound, generators, etc.) for the Simariya Mass Mela

The petitioner claimed to have performed additional work due to increased visitor volume and submitted bills totaling Rs. 31,67,082/- for the period 2014–2019

Previously, the petitioner filed CWJC No. 13556 of 2021, which resulted in a court order dated 09.03.2022 directing the respondents to examine the claim

Following this, the respondents paid Rs. 9,18,425/- after statutory deductions

The petitioner filed the present writ seeking the balance of Rs. 15,11,652/- plus 12% interest

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Mandamus for the payment of alleged "outstanding dues" in the absence of approved work orders or verified vouchers for additional work

2. Whether a second writ petition seeking the same relief as a previously disposed-of petition is maintainable when the court's earlier directions have been complied with

The court primarily assessed the petitioner’s claims under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the enforcement of legal rights to payment

It considered the principles of administrative law where state liability for payment arises only upon work performed under valid work orders issued by a competent authority and verified by approved vouchers

The court also applied the principle of finality of litigation, noting that a second writ petition for the same relief, without a fresh cause of action, is not maintainable

The court found that the respondents had already complied with the directions from the petitioner's previous writ (CWJC No. 13556 of 2021) by examining the claims and releasing Rs. 9,18,425/- based on verified records

Regarding the balance claim, the court noted the respondents' contention that no work orders were issued for the "additional work" and the submitted vouchers were neither approved nor verified by competent authorities

The petitioner failed to provide cogent evidence to disprove the State's stand

Furthermore, the court reasoned that the current petition sought the same relief as the earlier one; since the authorities had already performed the court-ordered review and paid the "admissible" amount, the petitioner lacked a fresh cause of action to invoke the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226

The court answered the issues by stating that a second writ for identical relief—following the completion of directions in the first—is not maintainable

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and all interlocutory applications were disposed of