Patna High Court
Rishu RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The court held that the payment of the admitted bills must be made to the petitioner within eight weeks, notwithstanding the stay order, and disposed of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Rishu Raj of 4R Construction, was awarded three municipal work orders by Sasaram Municipal Corporation and completed the work, with bills approved by the engineering officers. The Municipal Commissioner lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner, being the son of a ward councilor, violated Section 53(i) and (ii) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, leading to Memo No.1785 dated 03‑06‑2025 staying payment until the disposal of CWJC No.749/2025, which challenges the tender allotment. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the stay order and payment of Rs.20,63,235 with interest. The court noted that the petitioner in CWJC No.749 is not interested in the payment issue but seeks action against the Municipal Commissioner, and therefore directed the respondents to release the payment within eight weeks. The writ petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the stay of payment under Memo No.1785 is valid in view of the alleged violation of Section 53 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of the admitted bills despite the pending challenge in CWJC No.749/2025.
- Whether the alleged disqualification under Section 53(i) and (ii) bars the petitioner from receiving payment.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 — s. 53(i), 53(ii)
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Payment of bills
- Municipal tender
- Section 53
- Bihar Municipal Act
- Stay order
- Public procurement
- Interest
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11820 of 2025
======================================================
Rishu Raj, Son of Brajesh Kumar Singh, (Proprietor 4R Construction)
Resident of Village- Gaurakshani, Gajrath, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Project Officer-cum- Additional Director, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. Sasaram Municipal Corporation, through the Municipal Commissioner,
Sasaram.
5. The Municipal Commissioner, Sasaram Municipal Corporation, Sasaram.
6. The Executive Engineer, Urban Development Division, Sasaram and
Kaimur.
7. The Assistant Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Sasaram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rahul Rathour, Adv.
Mr.Sudhir Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Saharsh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ambrish Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (05)
Mr. Prashant Kumar, AC to SC 5
For the Resp. Nos. 4 and 5 Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
6 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filled for the
following reliefs:-
“(i). For quashing of order contained in
Memo No. 1785 dated 03.06.2025 issued
under the signature of Respondent No. 5
whereby and whereunder the payment of
admitted due bills of the petitioner
against the executed work has stayed till
Patna High Court CWJC No.11820 of 2025(6) dt.22-04-2026
2/6
the disposal of CWJC No. 749 of 2025.
(ii). For directing the respondents to pay
an admitted amount of Rs. 20,63,235/-
along with statutory / penal interest for
the work executed by the petitioner with
respect to different work of the scheme
executed by the petitioner.
(iii). For any other relief/ reliefs if
petitioner is found entitle in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that pursuant to the tender issued by the
respondent corporation, the petitioner was allotted the work vide
work order dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, the
petitioner completed the work on 06.08.2024, 12.08.2024, and
04.09.2024 (Annexures P/6, P/7, and P/9).
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent
Nos. 04 and 05, at para 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 it is
specifically stated as under:-
“7. That it appears from record that the
petitioner submitted his ers for both Tender
no.24/2023-24 for the scheme tender papers
no.05 and 07 and 26/2023-24 for scheme
no.10 appending relevant documents including
affidavit prescribed in format.
8. That it is stated that ultimately, in due
observance of prescribed procedure, bids were
open and the petitioner firm namely Rishu Raj
Patna High Court CWJC No.11820 of 2025(6) dt.22-04-2026
3/6
(4R construction) son of Rajesh Kumar Singh
Mohalla- Gaurakshani Gajradh, Town, PO
and PS-Sasaram district-Rohtas being L-1
bidder was allotted work for the three tenders
bearing tender no.24 scheme no.5, Tender
No.24 Scheme no.7, Tender no.26 scheme
no.10.
9. That thereafter the Nagar Nigam issued
three work orders in favor of the petitioner
vide office order contained in Memo no.1562
dated 15-03-2024 for scheme no.5 (NIT
No.24/2023-24, office order contained in
Memo no.1560 dated 15-03-2024 for scheme
no.7 (NIT No.24/2023-24) and office order
contained in Memo no.3281 dated 26-07-2024
for scheme no.10 (NIT No.26/2023-24)
respectively was allowed to him and thereafter
the petitioner executed agreement with
respondent no.5 on 12-06-2024 for scheme
no.5) for an estimated rate of Rs.4, 93, 199/-,
for scheme no.7 on 12-06-2024 for estimated
rate of Rs.3, 86, 217 and for scheme no.10 for
estimated rate of Rs.11, 83, 819/-.
10. That it is stated that from the record it
appears that the petitioner carried out the
works and its sample was collected and tested
and thereafter spot inspection was made by the
Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and
concerned Executive Engineer who
recommended for payment of bills vide report
Patna High Court CWJC No.11820 of 2025(6) dt.22-04-2026
4/6
dated 06-08-2024, 12.08.2024 and 04-09-2024
(Annexure-P/6 to P/8).
11. That it is stated that in the meantime the
Mayor, Sasaram Municipal Corporation
lodged complaint before Municipal
Commissioner, Sasaram vide her memo no.323
dated 03-08-2024 that the petitioner is son of a
ward councilor and so the allotment of work of
NIT bearing no.24/2023-24 or 26/2023-24 in
his favor is in violation of Section 53 (i) and
(ii) of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
12. That upon receipt of the complaint, a
guideline was sought from the Principal
Secretary, Urban development and Housing
department, Government of Bihar Patna vide
letter no.480 dated 21-02-2025.
13. That it is humbly stated that in response to
the aforesaid letter contained in Annexure-R-
5/B, Urban Development and Housing
department, Government of Bihar Patna vide
its letter no.4360 dated 22-04-2025 wrote to
Nagar Nigam Sasaram that necessary action
may be taken in accordance with the
provisions made in section 53 (i) and 53 (ii) of
Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 read with clause 18
(4) of the tender notice.
14. That it is humbly stated that in the
meantime one Sunil Kumar has filed CWJC
No.7491 of 2025 before this Hon'ble court
challenging the allotment of tender (NIT) to
Patna High Court CWJC No.11820 of 2025(6) dt.22-04-2026
5/6
the petitioner alleging violation of the
provisions and procedures prescribed under
law. The said writ petition is pending for
consideration and final adjudication before the
Hon'ble court wherein this deponent has filed
counter affidavit.
15. That That receipt of instruction from the
Project officer cum Additional Director, Urban
Development and Housing department,
Government of Bihar vide his letter dated 22-
04-2025, the deponent sought a legal opinion
from learned Government Pleader, Rohtas and
after considering the legal opinion the
deponent vide order contained in Memo no.
1785 dated 03-06-2025 (Annexure-P/13) has
rightly held that until disposal of the writ
petition bearing CWJC No.749/2025 (Sunil
Kumar versus the State of Bihar and others)
payment of the bills of the petitioner would not
be made to him and would be kept in
abeyance.”
5. Having regard to the fact that the writ petitioner
in CWJC No. 749 of 2025 has stated that he is not interested in
seeing that the amounts payable to the writ petitioner in CWJC
No. 11820 of 2025 are stopped and he is only interested in
seeing that necessary action is taken against the Municipal
Commissioner, Sasaram Municipal Corporation. This Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.11820 of 2025(6) dt.22-04-2026
6/6
deems it fit to direct the respondent authority to make the
necessary payment for the work completed by the petitioner at
the earliest preferably within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order
6. With the above directions, the present writ
petition stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…