Disposed

Ms Sayeed Akhtar Through Its Proprietor Sayeed Akhtar v. Drinking Water And Sanitation

Jharkhand HC8 Aug 2016WPC/4068/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ filed for release of balance contractual dues. Court held that contractual dues involving disputed questions of fact are non-maintainable in writ jurisdiction. Petitioner granted liberty to approach competent authority via fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach the competent authority through proper channels via a fresh representation with annexures for reconsideration of the claim within twelve weeks.

Ms Sayeed Akhtar Through Its Proprietor… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2016

M/s Sayeed Akhtar

…. Petitioner.

Versus

State of Jharkhand

¶7

Principal Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Ranchi.

¶8

Engineer in Chief, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Ranchi.

¶9

Chief Engineer cum Director (Incharge), State Water and Sanitation Mission, Ranchi.

¶10

Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Circle, Dhanbad.

¶11

Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division No.1, Giridih.

¶12

….. Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate For the Resp-State : J.C. to G.P..-I

¶16

¶17

03/08.08.2016 Heard counsel for the parties.

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court for direction upon the respondents to release the balance admitted dues of Rs.5,96,183/- towards the execution of works relating to relocation of 25 number of tube-wells in the district of Giridih under Short Tender Inviting Notice No.12 of 2012-13 (Annexure-1) issued by the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure-4 letter no. 106 of respondent no. 6-Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division No.1, Giridih addressed to respondent no.3Engineer in Chief, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Ranchi to submit that a request has been made to respondent no.3 for allotment of fund in respect of execution of work under agreement no. F2-93/2012-13 to the tune of Rs.5,96,183/- out of total bills of Rs.11,90,928/- in which sum of Rs.5,94,745/- has already been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon other such letters dated 2nd March, 2015 (Annexure-5), dated 21st March, 2015 (Annexure-6) and also representation made by the petitioner by Annexure-7 for release of the same. However, failure to pay heed to his grievances, has compelled him to approach this Court.

¶19

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no instruction has been furnished in the matter as it has been filed only in the last week. He, however, submits that the claim of contractual dues are not maintainable under writ jurisdiction as it may involve disputed questions of fact dependent on verification of execution of the work itself under the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

¶21

Be that as it may, upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is not inclined to enter into the determination of questions of claim arising out of contractual dues in the writ jurisdiction. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the respondent no.3/competent authority through proper channel of respondent no.6 with a fresh representation duly supported with annexures in respect of aforesaid claim. Needless to say, the competent authority/respondent no.3 on receipt thereof would consider the matter in accordance with law upon due scrutiny of relevant material facts and documents to come to a conclusion relating to admissibility of dues claimed by the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the dues are found to be admitted, the amount in question be released thereafter in favour of the petitioner within a reasonable time.

¶22

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶24

VK/Ajay

Ms Sayeed Akhtar Through Its Proprietor Sayeed Akhtar v. Drinking Water And Sanitation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sayeed Akhtar Through Its Proprietor Sayeed Akhtar v. Drinking Water And Sanitation

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

Anashtasia Kujur and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Emelda Minz Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jerodina Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Ms Index Suppliers Private Limited Through One Of Its Directors Devendra Kumar Singhania Vs The Authorised Officer State Bank Of India And Anr.

Bhanu Gorai Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Samchand Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.