Dismissed

Shaukat Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jul 2019WPC/804/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed this writ petition challenging the nondisbursement of Rs.3,70,000 for construction work. The Court held that writ jurisdiction is not appropriate to adjudicate disputed money claims, especially involving non-statutory work orders, and directed the party to seek relief from a competent civil forum.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to approach the appropriate forum for adjudication of the money claim dispute.

Shaukat Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.804 of 2018

¶3

¶4

1. Shaukat Ansari

¶5

2. Majid Hawari ……… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State of Jharkhand

¶8

2. Secretary, Department of Welfare, Ranchi

¶9

3. Deputy Commissioner Cum District Magistrate, Palamu

¶10

4. Block Development Officer, Chainpur, Palamu

¶11

5. Circle Officer Chainpur, Palamu

¶12

……….

¶13

6. Virendra Kumar Singh Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶16

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Roy, Adv. For the Resp.-State : Mr. J.F. Toppo, S.C. (L&C)-III ---

¶17

06/03.07.2019 This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 05.01.2018 passed by the District Welfare Officer, Palamu has been assailed by which the disbursement of an amount of Rs.3,70,000.00/- has been withheld to be paid in favour of the petitioner.

¶18

2. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the work order as contained in order dated 10.10.2014(annexure-3), he has been asked to start work for constructing the boundary wall over the land situated at Khata No.170, 208, 14, 90, 200 having plot nos.1182, 1185, 81 and 89.

¶19

The petitioner has started the work but in course thereof, it has been realized by the local authority on complaint being made by the local people that the construction of the boundary wall is to be made over the Kabristan which is situated in plot nos.662 and 657 and thereafter the local authority has considered that aspect of the matter and made recommendation to make necessary correction but the petitioner has completed the work and after its completion, the respondent no.5 has made complaint that the work has not been executed in pursuance to the work order dated 10.10.2014 and on the basis of that complaint, the money in lieu of execution to the tune of

¶20

Rs.3,70,000.00/- has not been disbursed, therefore, the instant writ petition.

¶21

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent-State.

¶22

4. Mr. J.F. Toppo, learned S.C.(L&C)-III appearing for the Respondent-State has submitted by referring to the stand taken by the State-Respondent in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has made construction over plot nos.662 and 657 which is disputed plot being raiyati in nature and further for making construction over the plot nos.662 and 657, no work order was issued, therefore, in such circumstance, the payment of Rs.3,70,000.00/- has not been considered to be paid and hence, no illegality has been committed by the State authority.

¶23

He has further submitted that even otherwise also in a nature of dispute upon the money claim, the same may not be interfered with under the writ jurisdiction.

¶24

5. Rejoinder has been filed, in response to the counter affidavit, wherein the averment has been made by the petitioner that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, since he was to make construction on the basis of the work order dated 10.10.2014 but on local inspection made on being apprised by the local people to the authority who after getting the fact, has made a noting in the representation that the necessary correction in the cheque slip is to be made by inserting plot nos.662 and 657 as would be evident from annexure-10 of the rejoinder, therefore, it is submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not at fault and hence withholding the amount is not justified.

¶25

He has further relied upon the report of Circle Officer dated 30.08.2017 whereby and whereunder the Circle Officer has reported that Khata Nos.170 and 208 is not entered in the record of rights in the name of Kabristan rather in the name of Smt. Gauri Devi and further the construction which has been made over the land in question is registered in the record of rights as Kabristan, therefore, the boundary wall since have been made surrounding the Kabristan where the Kabristan is situated, no illegality has been committed and

¶26

furthermore that the said inquiry report has also not been taken into consideration by the authority concerned.

¶27

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, the factual aspect which is not in dispute in this case is that a work order has been issued on 10.10.2014 under the seal and signature of the District Welfare Officer, Palamu by which the petitioner has been ordered to construct the boundary wall surrounding plot nos.1183, 1182, 1185, 81 and 89 comprising Khata Nos.170, 208, 14, 90 and 200.

¶28

When the petitioner has started the work, some local people has made complaint that the work order suffers from infirmity since the Kabristan is situated over another plot, the concerned authority after considering the aforesaid representation submitted by local villagers has given a note in the representation made by the local people(annexure-10) on 22.08.2017 referring therein that plot nos.662 and 657 is not find mentioned in the cheque slip, therefore, necessary rectification is required and for that the document has been directed to be sent before the competent authority.

¶29

7. The contention of the petitioner on the basis of that noting, the construction has been made over plot nos.662 and 657 and as such, he is entitled to get the amount to the tune of Rs.3,70,000.00/- for part of the work executed but having denied the same, the petitioner has compelled to come to this Court under writ jurisdiction by way of instant writ petition.

¶30

8. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he has started the work in pursuance to the work order dated 10.10.2014 and therefore, the said work order if having any infirmity, it is to be rectified thereafter the work ought to have been started but as has been contended by the petitioner that he has started the work over plot nos.662 and 657 but reference of plot does not find mentioned in the work order dated 10.10.2014.

¶31

9. It appears from the stand taken by the State authority in the counter affidavit that plot over which the boundary wall is constructed are in dispute, since the said plot has been said to be

¶32

raiyati as would be evident from the statement made in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit.

¶33

The aforesaid statement has been made at paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit although has been disputed in the rejoinder affidavit as appears from the paragraph-24, therefore, the construction made over plot nos.662 and 657 is seriously in dispute and upon such dispute the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court for making disbursement of the money which he has raised in constructing the part of the boundary wall.

¶34

10. It is the settled position of law that if the money claim is in dispute, the writ Court cannot be said to be appropriate Forum for adjudicating the dispute.

¶35

Further, the petitioner has started the work in pursuance to the order dated 10.10.2014 which is not a statutory contract and hence on that ground also, this Court is not supposed to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

11. In view thereof and in the entirety of the facts and circumstance of the case and taking into consideration the dispute involved with respect to the disbursement of money to the tune of Rs.3,70,000.00/-, this Court refrains itself from exercising the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

12. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hence it is dismissed.

¶38

13. However, it is open for the petitioner to ventilate his grievance before appropriate Forum.

¶39

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶40

Rohit/-

Shaukat Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaukat Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

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

Bisheswar Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

Suman Kumar Bajpai Vs Govind Prasad Dalmia

MD Minhaj Vs State of Jharkhand

Surendar Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Gopal Mishra Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Il and Fs Engineering and Construction Company Limited through Satyanarayana Vishnupanth Vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director