Dismissed

Ameen Khan v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Nov 2009WA/322/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Secretary of Rashtriya Colliery Majdoor Congress challenging the dismissal of his petition. The court held that the nature of the dispute regarding unauthorized power connections cannot be adjudicated under Article 226/227 jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed holding the dispute is not triable under writ jurisdiction.

Ameen Khan Vs South Eastern Coalfields… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHARTTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

Coram:Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mjshra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakaii, 44

¶3

WritAppeal No.322/2009

¶4

Appellant Ameen Khan, S/o Late Mohd. Yaseen, aged about 53 years, Secretary of Rashtriya Colliery Majdoor Congress (RCMC) Baikunthpur Area, R/o Churcha Colliery, Distt. Korea (CG)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Respondents 1. South Eastem Coal Fields LTD., Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG)

¶7

1. The Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Baikunthpur Area, Distt. Korea (CG)

¶8

1. The Sub Area Manager Churcha Colliery Church, SECL Baikunthpur Area, Distt. Korea (CG)

¶9

Writ appeal under Section 2 of the CG Hiah Court (Appeal to Divisional Bench) Act. 2006

¶10

Present: Shri A.N. Pandey, counsel for the appellant.

¶11

Oral Order

¶12

(Passed^{on7thof November,2009)}

¶13

Th'is writ appeal is directed against the order of Annexure P-1 dated 04.09.2009 passed in W.P. No.5015/2009, whereby the writ petition of the appellant for direction to the respondents to take appropriate action against unauthorized connection of power by the unauthorized persons at Churcha colliery has been dismissed.

¶14

(2) From the averments in the pleadings, it appears that an enquiry was ordered by the management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short the ('SECL') to identify unauthorized consumers of power. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry report was submitted vide Annexure P-4. The grievance of the appellant is that the SECL management did not act against the persons who were named as unauthorized power ,^ consumers in the report Annexure P-4, though it was their bounding duty. The appellant claiming himself to be the Secretary of Rashtriya

Cc-v ^ «( - -^L

Collsery Majdoor Congress (for short fhe 'RCMC') Baikunthpur Area, made several representations and requested for appropriate action against the unauthorized persons. However, when no action was taken, he filed the aboye writ petition and prayed for direction to the respondent to take appropriate action against the unauthorized consumers of power.

¶19

(3) By the impugned order, the appellant's petition has been dismissed by the learned single Judge with an obsen/ation that the members of the appellanfs Congress do not have grievance that they have not been granted electric connection and in these circumstances, it has been observed that the High Court shoutd not indulge Into a roving enquiry of the facts which does not disclose any caus©of action and the appellant has not made out a case as to how the rights of the appellant is infringed by action ofthe respondents.

¶20

(4) After going through the writ petition and hearing learnedcounsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that dispute of the nature raised by the appellant by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Artide 226/227.

¶21

(5) In view of the above, the writ appeai is dismissed.

¶22

Sd/Sd/Dhirendra Mishra R.N. Chandrakar Judge Judge

¶23

Priya

Ameen Khan v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameen Khan v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lochan Prasad Vs Anil Thorani

Lekh Ram Mohalia Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs Balkrishan Kuldip Kumar (Huf)

Vikas Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suneel @ Kali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Niyaz Ahmed and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh