Writ application seeking review of a previous dismissed petition regarding a generator facility dispute with State Bank of India was dismissed as petitioner has no valid ground since the matter was already settled in the earlier litigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 491 of 2015
Sajid Ali, S/o Late Khurshid Ali, R/o Ranki Mohalla, Ranka Road, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa.
… … Petitioner
Versus
1. State Bank of India through its Zonal Manager, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi.
2. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Garhwa Main Branch, P.O., P.S. and District Garhwa.
3. Manager, State Bank of India, Garhwa Main Branch, P.O., P.S. and District Garhwa.
4. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Garhwa Main Branch, P.O., P.S. and District Garhwa.
5. Surendra Kumar Sharma, S/o Ramkrit Mistri, R/o village Padma, P.O. Padma, Manatu, District Palamau.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent Nos. 1 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Amit to 4. Kumar, Mr. Maninder Kr. Sinha, Advocates' ---------
05/24.07.2019 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 is present.
The petitioner through this writ application virtually wants to review the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 2498/2013 on the ground that the said order was passed on the basis of an incorrect affidavit filed by the State Bank of India.
The dispute arises on account of the fact that the petitioner had on an earlier occasion prayed to allow the petitioner to provide 25 KVA DG set generator facility in the main branch of State Bank of India, Garhwa. In the said writ application being W.P.(C) No. 2498 of 2013 was dismissed on 17.10.2014 as the same involved disputed questions of fact and in absence of there being signature of an officer of the State Bank of India, Garhwa it could not be concluded that indeed there was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent-State Bank of India.
In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the respondent-State Bank of India it has been specifically stated
-2-
that the amount which was paid to the petitioner was on account of the tender. It has further been stated that the petitioner was supposed to install a soundless (Acoustic) 25 KVA DG Set but instead the petitioner installed an old Generator set which was creating sound as well as air pollution and accordingly no agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the State Bank of India, Garhwa. It has further been stated that whatever amount has been paid to the petitioner is on the basis of the communication dated 31.03.2012. The petitioner therefore seems to be reagitating his grievance although the same has been settled in W.P.(C) No. 2498 of 2013. The State Bank of India has also come out with a satisfactory explanation with respect to the payment made to the petitioner and not entering into an agreement with the petitioner subsequently on account of the petitioner installing an old generator set creating a lot of trouble for the Bank-Authorities.
In such view of the matter,therefore, I do not find any reason to accept the prayer of the petitioner. This writ application accordingly stands dismissed.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Alok/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow review of the impugned order in light of a different affidavit filed by the State Bank of India.
Whether the petitioner's grievance regarding the generator facility and payment is valid.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C) No. 2498 of 2013Referred¶14
Sajid Ali
State Bank of India
Surendra Kumar Sharma
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
