Dismissed

Pankaj Kumar Singh v. Central Coal Fields Ltd. And Ors.

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2014WPC/3246/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition for the payment of outstanding dues for repair and maintenance work completed in 2005. The court held that the impugned RTI response did not admit any amount is due and that serious disputed questions of fact existed, rendering the petition inadmissible. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as the matter involves disputed questions of not being entertained.

Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs Central Coal Fields Ltd. And… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3246 of 2013

¶3

Pankaj Kumar Singh, Rajeev Nagar, Hesal, Ranchi…Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Central Coalfields Ltd. Ranchi

¶6

General Manager, T.A. (Civil) CCL, Ranchi

¶7

Deputy General Manager, T.A. (Civil) CCL, Ranchi

¶8

Deputy Chief T.A.(C), CCL, Ranchi

¶9

Superintending Engineer, T.A.(C), CCL, Ranchi… Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. B.T. Jaiswal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ghulam Mustafa, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Sharib Mustafa, Advocate

¶12

05/04.12.2014 Seeking a direction for payment of Rs. 6,12,915/-, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶13

2. The petitioner was awarded work vide agreement executed on 24.10.2005 for repair and maintenance of residential quarters. The petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 18,64,195/though, the total amount for revised work was 24,77,100/-. The petitioner made several representations however, the balance amount was not paid and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶14

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to a document supplied to the petitioner through RTI, a copy of which is marked as Annexure-5/A and submits that it is apparent that the petitioner has not been paid the amount due to him.

¶15

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL submits that the document at Annexure-5/A only discloses the amount of first on account bill and second on account bill and in the said communication, CCL has not admitted any amount due to the petitioner. The petitioner has already been paid the amount

¶16

¶17

due to him.

¶18

5. I find substance in the contention of the counsel for the respondent-CCL. The information supplied to the petitioner does not indicate that any amount is due to the petitioner. The petitioner himself has admitted that he completed the work in the year, 2005 itself however, the present writ petition has been filed in the year, 2013. The writ petition involves serious disputed questions of fact.

¶19

6. In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶20

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶21

Manish/ N.A.F.R.

Pankaj Kumar Singh v. Central Coal Fields Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar Singh v. Central Coal Fields Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Yadav Vs Collectariate

Rohit Roy Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman And Anr.

Liyakat Ali and Ors. Vs Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation

Md. Ayub Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Muslim Ansari Vs Health Medical Education And Family Welfare Dept

Balmiki Ram Alias Balmiki Dhari Vs Collectariate