Disposed

Rbc Skb Unifour through Its Authorized Signatory Shoaib Anwar v. Central Coalfield Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC17 Jul 2019WPC/1478/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not exhausted remedies by approaching the competent authority for earnest money refund, though liberty was granted to do so.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach competent authority; writ petition disposed on maintainability grounds.

Rbc Skb Unifour through Its Authorized Signatory… — Company and Corporate | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P (C) No. 1478 of 2019

¶3

RBC-SKB-UNIFOUR, a Joint Venture Firm through its Authorised Signatory Shoaib Anwar .…… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.Central Coalfield Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

¶6

Chairman cum Managing Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

¶7

3.The General Manager, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

¶8

4.The General Manager (Civil), Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. …… Respondents

¶9

---------

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶11

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Adv. For the Respondents : Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, Adv. -----------

¶12

4/Dated: 17^th July, 2019

¶13

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has although prayed for issuance of two directions; to award the tender for diversion of Montiko Nala at Govindpur, OCP of Kathara area invited by the CCL vide e-tender notice dated 29.05.2017 in favour of the petitioner since he was the lowest bidder and in alternative refund the earnest money deposited by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.5,32,100/ pursuant to the cancellation of the aforementioned tender.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset, has submitted that he is not pressing the prayer pertaining to allotment of work whatsoever, rather he is pressing the prayer regarding refund of the earnest money deposit paid by the petitioner at the time of participation in the bid in pursuance to the tender in bid.

¶15

Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned counsel for the CCL has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition that the petitioner, without making any demand before the competent authority, has directly approached this Court invoking the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, it cannot be said that the

¶16

grievance of the petitioner has not been considered, warranting issuance of writ of mandamus.

¶17

Upon this, Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that liberty may be given to the petitioner to approach before the competent authority by making representation/application for refund of the earnest money.

¶18

In view thereof and for the reason that since the petitioner has directly approached this Court, invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without raising any demand before the competent authority, meaning thereby he has not exhausted the remedy, therefore, at this stage the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶19

However, the petitioner if approaches to the competent authority for refund of the earnest money, the competent authority will deal with the matter in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶22

Saket/-

Rbc Skb Unifour through Its Authorized Signatory Shoaib Anwar v. Central Coalfield Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rbc Skb Unifour through Its Authorized Signatory Shoaib Anwar v. Central Coalfield Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

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

Ms Chandra Construction Through Its Proprietor Kameshwar Prasad Yadav Vs The Union Of India Through Ministry Of Road Transport Andhighways And Ors.

Safiran Bibi Alias Sabiran Bibi And Anr. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Dil Mohammad Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Rameshwar Thakur And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Santoshini Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Safaul Rahman Vs Mohammad Khalil