IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16240 of 2019

======================================================

Amit Kumar Singh Son of Late Ashok Singh R/o Village- Shivganj, P.O.-

Dariyapur, District- Muffasil Munger, District- Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.The Principal Secretary, Planning and Development Department, Govt. of

Bihar, Patna.

3.The Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Works

Division, Munger.

4.The Estimating Officer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Works

Division, Munger.

5.The Junior Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Works Division,

Munger.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Uma Shankar Sharma

For the Respondent/s: M/s Vinay Kirti Singh, GA2

Venkatesh Kirti, AC to GA 2

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 03-07-2026

1. The Writ petition is filed for the

following reliefs:

“(i) To set aside the award dt.

16.5.2019 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice

(Retd) Mungeshwar Sahoo the Chairman

and Mr. Md. Shahid Hussain Member Bihar

Public Works Contracts Disputes

Arbitration Tribunal Patna, in Reference

case No. 64/2015, whereby and

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

2/15

whereunder they were pleased to dismiss

the reference case of the petitioner being

reference case 64/2015 with cost Rs.

10,000/- vide order dated 16.5.2019.

(ii) To make payment to the

petitioner of the admitted dues amount of

Rs. 2,38,000/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty

eight thousand) of excess work done by

the petitioner of Agreement No.

44F2/2012-13, for construction of PCC

road in Paswan tola, Rai Tola, Mandal Tola

at Hasanpur, Sadar Munger in the District

of Munger and also make payment of

statutory interest on the said amount.

(iii) To return the security

Deposit amount (SD) of the petitioner.

(iv) To pass any other relief (s)

for which the petitioner would be found

entitled by this Hon'ble High Court in law

as well as facts and circumstances of this

case.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

3/15

2. The brief facts culled out of the Writ

petition is that the petitioner, a registered

contractor of the respondent Department, was

awarded Agreement No. 44F-2/2012-13 dated

01.02.2013, for construction of a PCC road in

Paswan Tola, Rai Tola and Mandal Tola at Hasanpur,

Sadar, Munger, for a contract value of

Rs.5,50,205/-, with the stipulated period of

completion being three months. According to the

petitioner, the contractual work was completed

within the prescribed time. It is submitted that,

during execution of the work, the departmental

authorities instructed him to execute additional

works, including widening of the road, resulting in

enhancement of the total value of the work from

Rs.5,50,205/- to Rs.7,88,144/-, thereby giving rise

to an additional claim of Rs.2,38,000/-.

3. It is submitted that although the

Measurement Book (M.B. No.98 dated 05.02.2013)

recorded the work executed by the petitioner,

including the alleged additional work, and despite

the authorities having acknowledged the execution

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

4/15

of such work, payment was made only in respect of

the original agreement value. Out of the

contractual amount, the petitioner received

Rs.4,29,247/- after statutory deductions, while the

amount claimed towards the additional work,

namely Rs.2,38,000/-, as well as the security

deposit, remained unpaid despite repeated

representations made before the departmental

authorities.

4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that aggrieved by the non-payment, the

petitioner had earlier approached this Court by

filing CWJC No.5436 of 2014. The said Writ petition

came to be dismissed by order dated 07.08.2014

on the ground that the dispute involved disputed

questions of fact and was not amenable to Writ

jurisdiction. However, liberty was granted to the

petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court or

to invoke arbitration in terms of the agreement.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid liberty, the

petitioner filed Reference Case No.64 of 2015

before the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

5/15

Arbitration Tribunal, seeking payment of the

alleged admitted dues of Rs.2,38,000/- together

with interest and refund of the security deposit.

The Tribunal, by Award dated 16.05.2019,

dismissed the reference holding that the claim was

devoid of merit and also imposed costs of

Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner.

6. The Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the Tribunal failed to properly

appreciate the materials available on record,

particularly the Measurement Book and other

departmental records evidencing execution of the

additional work. It is contended that the authorities

themselves had accepted the execution of the

extra work, yet arbitrarily withheld payment

thereof. It is further submitted that the Tribunal

failed to consider the admitted nature of the claim

of the petitioner and passed the impugned award

without proper appreciation of the facts and

evidence, rendering the award arbitrary, illegal and

unsustainable in law.

7. On the aforesaid submissions, it is

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

6/15

prayed that the Award dated 16.05.2019 passed by

the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes

Arbitration Tribunal in Reference Case No.64 of

2015 be set aside, the respondents be directed to

pay the petitioner the amount of Rs.2,38,000/-

towards the additional work allegedly executed by

him under Agreement No.44F-2/2012-13 together

with statutory interest; the security deposit be

refunded; and such other consequential reliefs be

granted as may be deemed fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case.

8. A detailed counter affidavit has been

filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 opposing

the Writ petition. The Learned counsel for the

respondents submits that the present Writ petition

is directed against the Award, dated 16.05.2019

passed by the Bihar Public Works Contracts

Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, in Reference Case

No. 64 of 2015, whereby the Tribunal, upon due

consideration of the pleadings and materials on

record, dismissed the claim of the petitioner with

costs. It is contended that the impugned award is

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

7/15

reasoned, legal and does not warrant interference

in exercise of the Writ jurisdiction of this Court.

9. It is submitted that the claim of the

petitioner for payment of Rs.2,38,000/- towards

alleged excess work is wholly unfounded.

According to the respondents, no direction or

authorization was ever issued by the competent

departmental authority requiring the petitioner to

execute any work beyond the scope of Agreement

No.44F-2/2012-13. The petitioner has failed to

produce any work order, written instruction or

approval issued by the competent authority

authorizing execution of the alleged additional

work.

10. It is further submitted that neither any

supplementary agreement was executed nor was

any revised estimate sanctioned for carrying out

any excess work. In absence of any such

authorization, the claim for additional payment is

wholly untenable.

11. The Learned counsel for the

respondents further submits that the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

8/15

was paid the entire contractual amount, in terms of

the agreement after making statutory deductions

towards Income Tax, Sales Tax and other

admissible deductions. The petitioner accepted the

said payment on 31.03.2013, in full and final

settlement without raising any objection at the

relevant point of time. It was only after more than

five months, by representation dated 12.08.2013,

that the petitioner raised the claim for alleged

excess work. Such belated claim, according to the

respondents, has rightly been rejected by the

Tribunal.

12. It is further contended that the

application relied upon by the petitioner, on which

certain endorsements are stated to have been

made by departmental officials, does not

constitute any valid authorization for execution of

additional work. In this regard, reliance is placed

upon the earlier order passed by this Court in CWJC

No.5436 of 2014, wherein it was specifically

observed that there was nothing on record to show

that any work order had been issued by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

9/15

competent authority authorizing the petitioner to

execute any additional work and that mere

endorsements on an application could not

establish such authorization. The respondents

submit that the findings recorded by this Court in

the earlier proceedings fully support the conclusion

arrived at by the Tribunal.

13. It is also submitted that the Tribunal

has rightly relied upon the settled legal principles

governing such disputes. Reliance has been placed

on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Genus Power

Infrastructure Ltd., reported in (2015) 2 SCC

424, wherein it has been held that once payment

is accepted in full and final settlement without

protest, the contractor cannot subsequently invoke

arbitration or raise further claims, unless the

settlement itself is shown to have been vitiated in

accordance with law. According to the respondents,

the petitioner, having accepted the contractual

payment in full and final satisfaction without any

contemporaneous protest, is estopped from

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

10/15

claiming any further amount.

14. On the aforesaid grounds, the Learned

counsel for the respondents submits that the

Tribunal has committed no error either on facts or

in law while rejecting the petitioner's claim. It is,

therefore, prayed that the Writ petition, being

devoid of merit, be dismissed.

15. Heard the Learned counsel for the

petitioner and the Learned counsel for the

respondents. Perused the records.

16. At the outset, it is pertinent to notice

that this is the second round of litigation. Earlier,

the petitioner had approached this Court in CWJC

No.5436 of 2014 claiming payment for the alleged

excess work executed under Agreement No.44F-

2/2012-13. While declining to entertain the Writ

petition on the ground that the dispute involved

disputed questions of fact, the Coordinate Bench

had categorically observed that there was nothing

on record to establish that any competent

authority had issued a work order authorizing the

petitioner to execute the alleged additional work.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

11/15

The Court further held that mere endorsements

made on an application submitted by the petitioner

could not be treated as authorization for execution

of additional work nor could they constitute the

basis for directing payment. Liberty was, however,

reserved to the petitioner to pursue such remedy

as may be available in accordance with law.

17. Pursuant to the aforesaid liberty, the

petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Bihar

Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration

Tribunal. A perusal of the impugned Award reveals

that the Tribunal has considered the entire factual

matrix as well as the observations made by this

Court in the earlier Writ proceedings. The Tribunal

has rightly noticed that the very material on which

the petitioner founded his claim, namely the

endorsements made on his application, had

already been found insufficient by this Court to

establish authorization for execution of additional

work. In absence of any fresh or independent

material demonstrating issuance of a valid work

order or any supplementary agreement authorizing

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

12/15

execution of the alleged excess work, the Tribunal

cannot be faulted for declining to grant the relief

claimed by the petitioner.

18. This Court also finds substance in the

reasoning assigned by the Tribunal that the

petitioner has failed to establish that any

competent authority had sanctioned the alleged

additional work or that any revised estimate or

supplementary agreement had ever been

executed. It is well settled that a contractor cannot

claim payment for work allegedly executed beyond

the contractual scope unless, such work is duly

authorized in the manner contemplated under the

contract and the applicable departmental

procedure. Mere assertions or unilateral claims,

unsupported by any valid authorization, do not

create an enforceable contractual liability upon the

State.

19. Another significant circumstance

noticed by the Tribunal is that the petitioner

admittedly accepted payment of the contractual

amount without recording any protest or objection.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

13/15

The petitioner has not disputed the finding that the

payment under the agreement was received in full

and final settlement of the contractual dues. No

material has been placed on record to demonstrate

that such acceptance was under coercion, duress

or undue influence. The Tribunal has, therefore,

rightly relied upon the principles laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Insurance

Company Ltd. v. Genus Power Infrastructure

Ltd., (2015) 2 SCC 424 , Union of India v.

Master Construction Company , (2011) 12 SCC

349, and ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals

Ltd. v. ANS Constructions Ltd. , (2018) 3 SCC

373, wherein it has been consistently held that

acceptance of payment in full and final settlement

ordinarily brings the contractual dispute to an end

unless the plea of coercion or undue influence is

specifically pleaded and duly established.

20. It is equally well settled that while

exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution, this Court does not sit as an

appellate authority over an arbitral award.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

14/15

Interference is warranted only when the decision-

making process is vitiated by patent illegality,

perversity, jurisdictional error or violation of the

principles of natural justice. A mere possibility of

another view on appreciation of evidence would

not justify exercise of the Writ jurisdiction.

21. In the present case, the Tribunal has

considered the pleadings, the documentary

evidence, the earlier order passed by this Court,

and the applicable legal principles before recording

its findings. The findings recorded by the Tribunal

are based on the materials available on record and

cannot be said to be arbitrary, perverse or contrary

to law. The petitioner has failed to point out any

jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the

impugned Award warranting interference by this

Court.

22. In the facts and circumstances noticed

hereinabove, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the impugned Award dated

16.05.2019 does not suffer from any infirmity

requiring interference in exercise of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2019 dt.03-07-2026

15/15

extraordinary Writ jurisdiction of this Court. The

Writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be

dismissed.

23. Accordingly, the writ petition is

dismissed.

24. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,

shall stand disposed of.

Spd/-

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

AFR/NAFR NAFR

CAV DATE NA

Uploading Date 03.07.2026

Transmission Date