Disposed

M/S Jay Bee Enterprises Throug v. Sri Shiv Basant And Anr.

Jharkhand HC1 Mar 2013Cont.(Cvl)/13/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In contempt proceedings against the State Electricity Board for delays in payments regarding a completed power development project, the Court dropped the petitions noting that substantive adjudication on the Board's deducting decision was not within the scope of contempt jurisdiction. Petitioners were directed to challenge such orders before an appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Both contempt proceedings are dropped.

M/S Jay Bee Enterprises Throug Vs Sri Shiv Basant… — Company and Corporate | Jharkhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cont. Case (C) No. 13 of 2011 With Cont. Case (C) No. 14 of 2011

¶3

M/s Jay Bee Enterprises Through its partner

¶4

Jai Ram Sharan Singh…………………… Petitioner (In both cases)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Shiv Basant, I.A.S. Chairman, JSEB, Ranchii

¶7

State of Jharkhand…………………… Opp. Parties (in both cases)

¶8

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad

¶9

…… For the petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Ajit Kumar, AAG ……

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

C.A.V. on 21/02/2013 Delivered on 01/03/2013

¶12

47 /01.03.2013 It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been assigned with a job under Central Sponsored Project namely Accelerated Power Development Programme (A.P.D.R.P.) for augmentation, renovation etc. of the transmission lines in the township of Katras and Jamtara, which was executed by the petitioner and got completed in March, 2010. After its completion, according to the case of the petitioner, the State Electricity Board started drawing power through newly laid transmission lines. As per agreement, payment was supposed to be made on the pro-rata basis meaning thereby that the payment was to be made time to time on completion of part of the Project but it was not only completely ignored by the Board, rather even after completion of the Project, payment was not made, though a Committee constituted for verification of the Project, had certified that APDRP Project has been completed in accordance with specification and even the Board has been drawing power through transmission lines. On such certificate even the Chairman took a decision to make payment to the petitioner. In spite of that when the payment was

¶13

not made to the petitioner, the petitioner moved to this Court vide WPC Nos. 4878 of 2010 and 4881 of 2010, one was with respect to the Project at Katras and another was with respect to Project at Jamtara, wherein the prayer was made to direct the respondent Board to make payment of the claim of the petitioner as per the terms of the contract.

¶14

2 . After hearing the counsel for the parties, both the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of on 03/11/2010 with a direction to the petitioner to lay his claim before the Chairman, Electricity Board, Ranchi, so that decision be taken by the Chairman in the matter of payment in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, within a period of four weeks.

¶15

3 . Pursuant to that decision, representation was made before the Chairman, electricity Board on 20/11/2010, but when no decision was taken, these two contempt petitions bearing Nos. 13 and 14, were filed.

¶16

4 . Upon filing of the contempt petitions, interlocutory application (I.A. No. 125/2011), was filed on behalf of the Board stating therein that some deficiency has been found in the Project, which was laid down by the petitioner and assessment of the extent of the deficiency would at least consume sometime and on that plea prayer was made to grant two months time for taking decision in the matter. That claim was resisted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by submitting that at the time of disposal of the writ petitions, the stand, which was taken on behalf of the Board for non-payment of the claim was that there has been delay in completion of the job assigned to the petitioner but now the stand is being taken that some deficiency has been found, though earlier the Committee constituted by the Board on making verification of the project had certified that the Project has been completed. Thereupon, it was observed by the Court that there may be some deficiency but the entire Project has never been shown to the faulty and as such, the respondent Board was directed

¶17

to make payment to the petitioner at least to the extent of 50% of the claim. Thereupon, the Board filed Interlocutory Application for recalling/modifying the aforesaid order for which, several grounds were taken. But when none of the ground was found tenable, Chairman, Electricity Board was directed to make payment in terms of the contract to the petitioner.

¶18

5 . Pursuant to that order, certain payments seems to have been made to the petitioner but certain amounts, after being deducted from the bills, was kept under the head Keep Back for the reason as stated on behalf of the Board that the materials supplied by the petitioner are suspected to be short for which verification is going on and the final assessment of the shortage can be ascertained only after completion of verification and the amount, which has been deducted is based on provisional assessment. It further appears that on verification of the stock, it was found that the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 11,55,299/which was paid. However, the petitioner was not satisfied with the payment made to him. Learned counsel did point out that no decision has still been taken on the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to order passed by this Court in the writ applications.

¶19

On such submissions, it was stated by the learned counsel appearing for the Board that the Board shall be taking decision over the representation and if on decision being taken, it is found that something is due to be paid to the petitioner, it would be paid.

¶20

6 . Thereupon, an affidavit was filed stating therein that pursuant to order passed by this Court, a Committee was constituted for sample verification of Jamtara and Katras Project under the order of the Chairman of J.S.E.B. and pursuant to that ESE-cum-C.E.O., Layabad, submitted a verification report with respect to Katras town project whereby he recommended to deduct a sum of Rs. 13,38,565.10/- on account of shortcoming/deficiency in the work. After submission of that report, certain

¶21

works were done, which were reviewed and upon it a shortcoming was found to the extent of worth Rs. 3,95,565.10/-. Thus, a sum of Rs. 11,55,299/-, was found payable to the petitioner, which has been paid to him.

¶22

Learned counsel further submits that the Committee did find that nothing is payable so far it relates to Jamtara Project. Thus, it was submitted that final decision has already been taken and, therefore, the order passed by this Court has been complied with.

¶23

However, Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action on the part of the Board is quite deprecable as earlier as had been pointed out at number of occasions that the Committee constituted by the Board had not found anything wrong with the Project and even the Chairman had taken decision on the basis of the report of the Committee to make payment. But, thereupon, several stands were taken to deny the rightful claim of the petitioner, which were never tenable and, therefore, under the circumstances the stand, which has been taken by the Board under its order as contained in memo no. 34 dated 23/06/2012, annexed as Annexure-1 to the show cause filed on 27/06/2012, on the basis of the report, is never tenable.

¶24

It be stated that on the basis of the report submitted by the Committee constituted under the order of the Chairman, JSEB, a decision has been taken for deducting the amount on account of certain shortcomings/deficiency in the work. Propriety and illegality of it cannot be adjudicated upon in these contempt petitions.

¶25

Accordingly, both the contempt proceedings are hereby dropped. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved with the order passed by Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Opp. parties) he may challenge it before an appropriate Forum.

¶26

(R.R.Prasad, J)

M/S Jay Bee Enterprises Throug v. Sri Shiv Basant And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jay Bee Enterprises Throug v. Sri Shiv Basant And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanti Mahanty Rohini Vs State of Jharkhand

Hazara Khatoon Alias Hazra Khatoon Alias Smt Hazra Khatoon and Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Mr.Suleen Suleen Bhagat And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

M/S Jay Bee Enterprises Throug Vs Sri Shiv Basant And Anr.

Maqsud Ansari Alias MD Maqsood Ansari Alias Maqusud Ansari Alias Maksud Ansari Vs State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi

Tinku Mian Tinku And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Kanti Mahanty Rohini Vs State of Jharkhand

Hazara Khatoon Alias Hazra Khatoon Alias Smt Hazra Khatoon and Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Mr.Suleen  Suleen Bhagat And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

M/S Jay Bee Enterprises Throug Vs Sri Shiv Basant And Anr.

Maqsud Ansari Alias MD Maqsood Ansari Alias Maqusud Ansari Alias Maksud Ansari Vs State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi

Tinku Mian  Tinku And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Mr.Suleen Suleen Bhagat And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Tinku Mian Tinku And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.