AI Insights
The case revolves around the petitioner, Samagra Vikash Samittee, an NGO, which was initially selected by the state to implement the Total Sanitation Campaign. The petitioner contested the state's decision to assign part of the project to another NGO, claiming it was done without proper adherence to guidelines. The respondents justified their decision by stating that the petitioner had only completed about 40% of the work and the quality did not meet the campaign's standards. The court, after considering the arguments and the counter affidavit from the respondents, decided not to interfere with the state's decision, emphasizing that the execution of such projects is best judged by the state authorities.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803411 (HC-PATNA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
01-12-2015
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13772 of 2012 =========================================================== Samagra Vikash Samittee Through Secretary Shree Ram Singh S/O Late Hari Prasad Singh R/O Mohalla- Sareya Kali Mandir Ward No.4, Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of Inida Through Its Secretary Rural Development, Government Of India 2. The State Of Bihar Through Its Secretary, P.H.E.D., Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Vigilance Commissioner, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Engineer In Chief Cum Special Secretary Technical Examiner Cell, Ministerial Vigilance Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. The Auditor General, Bihar, Patna 6. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Muzaffarpur 7. The Superintending Engineer Cum Chairman Core Group Of Technical Cell, P.H.E.D., Circle Saran, Chapra 8. The District Magistrate Cum Working President District Water And Sanitation Mission, Gopalganj 9. The District Development Commissioner cum Chairman District Water and Sanitation Committee, Gopalganj 10. The Executive Engineer cum Secretary District Water And Sanitation Committee, P.H.E.D., Gopalganj .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. AKHILESH KUMAR For the State Mr. Amarendra Kumar For Income Tax Mr. R. Roy For the UOI Mr. S.N. Pathak =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-12-2015 Having heard the counsel for the parties, I. A. No. 6029 of 2013 is allowed. The petitioner, Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) shall now be represented by Shree Niraj Kumar Singh who is currently serving as the Secretary of the Samgra Vikash Samitteee. The petitioner-Organization was selected as an Agency by the respondent-State for the implementation of the Project called Total Sanitation Patna High Court CWJC No.13772 of 2012 dt.01-12-2015 2/3 Campaign sponsored by the Central Government and implemented through the State Government. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the work was being discharged the respondent selected another Agency (NGO) and gave part of the job towards implementation of the Project to another NGO which was earlier allotted to the petitioner-Organization. This was done without complying with the guidelines issued in this behalf. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated the reasons for assigning part of the job to another Organization/NGO. It is stated that the petitioner has completed only about 40% of the total work allotted to him and on an inspection those works were also not found as per the requirement of the Total Sanitation Campaign. In such circumstances, the work has been assigned to some other NGO. Obviously, no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. If at all there is any such right that arises out of the work order or the agreement which the petitioner might have signed with the respondent-State. The respondents have adequately explained the reasons in the counter affidavit. In the writ jurisdiction, this Court finds it difficult to grant the relief to the petitioner ignoring the reasons which the respondent-State has explained. The best Judge of such matter would the respondents who are entrusted with the execution of the work through the NGO, like the petitioner. Declining the relief, this Court would permit the petitioner to agitate his grievance, if any, as raised in this writ application before the appropriate forum/authority in accordance with law. After the order was dictated, it has been submitted that some work was executed by the petitioner under the said Project for which the payment has not till date been made to the petitioner. If that be so, this Court would further Patna High Court CWJC No.13772 of 2012 dt.01-12-2015 3/3 grant the petitioner liberty to approach the competent authority of the State- respondent for payment of the outstanding legal dues. If any such application is filed, I am sure the concerned respondent shall consider the same and take appropriate decision and/or pass order in accordance with law. The application is disposed of. HR/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) U "
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
1:1 Consultation with family dentist -Your Smile Deserves the Best Care!
₹250
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Non-Compete Agreement
₹0
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key GST Reforms that will Reshape Compliance and Cash Flows
Team Counselvise - February 03, 2026