Authority: High Court of Judicature at Patna

Order Date: 30-10-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Binod Kumar Mishra, a contractor residing in Rohtas, Bihar. Respondents – State of Bihar (through Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing), District Urban Development Agency (DUDA) Rohtas, and Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (BUIDCO).
  • Background: An e‑tender (No. 02/2014‑15/DUDA/Rohtas) was published in 2014. Mishra was declared L‑1 and awarded three work orders dated 14‑11‑2014 for construction of PCC road, drain, and a ghat in Ward 16, Nagar Panchayat, Vikramganj, Rohtas (financial year 2013‑14). Three agreements were executed on 27‑12‑2014 – Agreement Nos 37/2014‑15, 39/2014‑15, 42/2014‑15 – with the Executive Engineer, DUDA.
  • Work Completion & Payments: Mishra completed the work within the stipulated time. Physical verification and measurement were carried out, and work‑completion certificates were issued. Part payments were made in 2015 after statutory deductions: Rs 3,80,000 (Agreement 37), Rs 38,000 (Agreement 39), and Rs 8,55,000 (Agreement 42).
  • Claimed Outstanding Dues: Mishra claimed the following balances:
  • Agreement 37 – claimed Rs 7,53,525 (petition page shows Rs 6,71,700).
  • Agreement 39 – claimed Rs 76,863 (petition page shows Rs 71,852).
  • Agreement 42 – claimed Rs 17,38,103 (petition page shows Rs 12,46,723).
  • Correspondence: Letters dated 29‑08‑2017, 12‑09‑2017, 10‑11‑2022, and 23‑12‑2022 were sent to the Executive Engineer/Project Director, DUDA, requesting payment of the balances; no response was received.
  • Criminal Proceedings: An FIR (Sasaram Nagar PS Case No. 1326/2015) was lodged against contractors, including Mishra, under IPC Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 47, alleging publication of fake tenders. The police investigation report concluded that contractors were not complicit.
  • Initial Writ Petition: Mishra filed CWJC No. 2718 of 2023 seeking direction to pay the outstanding amounts with interest. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on 29‑03‑2023, holding it non‑maintainable because an alternative and efficacious remedy existed under the Commercial Court Act, 2015.
  • Appeal: The present Letters Patent Appeal No. 627 of 2023 challenges that dismissal.
  • Arguments by Appellant: Cited Supreme Court judgments (ABL International Ltd. vs ECGC, Surya Constructions vs U.P., Fulena Construction vs State of Bihar) emphasizing that writ petitions are maintainable for contractual monetary claims, especially where Article 14 (non‑arbitrariness) applies to State actions.
  • Arguments by Respondents: Emphasised the eight‑year delay, alleged collusive tendering, FIR findings, and that the matter should be referred to arbitration under the Bihar Public Works Contract Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, as per precedent in M/s Ankuj Construction vs State of Bihar.
  • Legal Precedents Cited by Court: The judgment extensively quoted Supreme Court decisions on delay, laches, and the discretionary nature of Article 226 (e.g., State of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai, Joshi Technologies vs Union of India, Mrinmoy Maity vs Chanda Koley, Tridip Kumar Dingal vs State of West Bengal, Mafatlal Industries vs Union of India).
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay of about eight years, exceeding the three‑year limitation period for recovery of contractual money.
  • No satisfactory explanation for the delay was provided.
  • The contract is a private‑law contract; the appropriate remedy is a civil suit or arbitration, not a writ under Article 226.
  • The doctrine of delay and laches, as well as the principle of “approbate and reprobate,” preclude granting extraordinary relief.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the writ petition is non‑maintainable due to unreasonable delay, availability of alternative remedies, and the private‑law nature of the contract. Mishra is directed to pursue his claim through ordinary civil or arbitration proceedings.

Topics: Contractual Payment Dispute, Judicial Delay