"Justice for the Unpaid: A Businessman’s Fight Against Bureaucratic Delays"

 


Introduction

In a legal dispute that highlights bureaucratic inefficiencies and delays in government payments, M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution, a private business, filed a petition against the Bihar government for non-payment of its outstanding dues. The case, heard by the Patna High Court, sheds light on how businesses and private entities are often forced into prolonged litigation to recover payments for services rendered to the government.

This case not only questions the State's commitment to fair business practices but also underscores the need for efficient grievance redressal mechanisms.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution, is a business entity that was engaged by the Agriculture Department of the Bihar government to set up a stall at the Krishi Pradarshani (Agriculture Exhibition) during the Sonepur Mela in 2017-18. The firm carried out its work and submitted its bill, but despite multiple follow-ups and formal requests, the government failed to clear the pending payment of ₹21,67,056 (approximately 21.67 lakh rupees).

After exhausting all administrative channels and waiting for nearly five years, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court in 2022, seeking justice.

Legal Grounds for the Petition

The petitioner approached the court with the following demands:

  1. Issuance of a writ of Mandamus – A directive to the government to release the pending amount of ₹21,67,056.
  2. Recognition of the unfair delay – A request to the court to acknowledge that the payment was held up without any fault of the petitioner.
  3. Any other relief deemed appropriate – The petitioner sought any additional relief that the court found just and fair.

Key Issues Highlighted by the Court

1. A Flood of Similar Cases

The Patna High Court observed that a large number of similar writ petitions were being filed, where businesses and individuals had completed government projects but were not paid on time. The court pointed out that the government frequently avails services from private entities but fails to settle payments promptly, forcing affected parties into costly and time-consuming legal battles.

Examples include:

  • Hiring vehicles for government duties such as elections.
  • Setting up temporary infrastructure (like tents and booths) for public events.
  • Executing minor public works that do not fall under major contract laws.

The court noted that while some cases are resolved quickly due to the influence of certain officials, most businesses are left struggling for years to receive their rightful dues.

2. Government’s Failure to Use its Own Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

The State of Bihar has a Litigation Policy (2011) that aims to reduce unnecessary lawsuits and ensure prompt resolution of disputes. The court pointed out that the government failed to implement this policy effectively.

Key provisions of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, that were ignored:

  • Avoiding unnecessary litigation: The policy instructs government officials to resolve disputes before they reach the courts.
  • Grievance Redressal Committees: The policy mandates the creation of committees at the state, district, and sub-divisional levels to handle such claims.
  • Time-bound resolution: The policy states that all claims should be addressed within eight weeks, yet this case dragged on for over five years.

The court found it unacceptable that despite having clear policies, officials neglected their duties and forced the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.

3. Administrative Apathy and Favoritism

The court harshly criticized the attitude of government officials who selectively address claims while leaving most businesses and individuals without resolution. The bench remarked that some claims were settled immediately when officials had a vested interest, while others were left unresolved for years.

In this case, the District Agriculture Officer, Saran (Chapra), had already approved the payment request and forwarded it to higher authorities in August 2019. However, the senior officials ignored it for three years, despite repeated reminders from the petitioner.

The court emphasized that such negligence and selective decision-making undermine public trust in government processes and increase the burden on the judiciary.

Court’s Directives and Judgment

The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the claim itself but issued strong directions to the Bihar government to fix its administrative inefficiencies. The court ordered the following:

  1. Chief Secretary of Bihar to Ensure Prompt Consideration of Claims

    • All government departments must ensure that claims and disputes are resolved in a timely manner instead of forcing businesses and individuals into litigation.
    • Claims should ideally be settled within six months from the date of submission.

  2. Disciplinary Action Against Negligent Officials

    • Any government officer found delaying payments without valid reasons should face disciplinary action.
    • The court highlighted the need to hold officials accountable to prevent similar cases in the future.

  3. Expedited Decision in the Petitioner’s Case

    • The Principal Secretary of the Agriculture Department was directed to examine the case within two months and ensure payment if the claim is found legitimate.

  4. Better Use of Technology for Redressal Mechanisms

    • The court encouraged the creation of a web portal where businesses and individuals could submit claims and track their status.
    • The goal is to reduce unnecessary litigation by providing transparency and accountability in payment processes.

Wider Implications of the Case

This judgment sets a strong precedent for:

  • Private businesses dealing with the government – It reassures them that delayed payments can be challenged in court.
  • Government accountability – The ruling emphasizes that bureaucrats cannot ignore financial obligations without consequences.
  • Judicial efficiency – By advocating alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, the court aims to reduce the burden of such repetitive cases.

Conclusion: Justice Delayed but Not Denied

This case underscores the frustrations of private entities working with the government and the bureaucratic hurdles they face. It highlights how delayed payments can cripple businesses and how inefficient governance forces unnecessary legal battles.

While the court has not immediately granted payment to the petitioner, its stern warnings and directives have put government officials under pressure to resolve such disputes quickly. This judgment sends a clear message: delays and negligence in financial matters will no longer be tolerated.

The outcome of this case will likely lead to systemic improvements in government payment processes and encourage businesses to stand up for their rights through legal avenues.

Read the full judgement Below;