Ms Maa Bhagwati Construction Represented through One of Its Partners Balraj Anand v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Jan 2021WPC/2312/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction to release/refund charges imposed regarding road construction work. The High Court, without adjudicating the merit favorably granted liberty to submit a fresh representation to the Zonal Manager for an informed decision after an opportunity of hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ms Maa Bhagwati Construction Represented through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2312 of 2020

¶2

M/s. Maa Bhagwati Construction, a partnership firm Prmeshwaram being represented through one of its partners Balraj Anand.

¶3

..... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Secretary, Rural Works Department, FFT Building, Near Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶7

The Chief Engineer, Jharkhand State Rural Road Department Authority, FFT Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶8

National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd., New Delhi.

¶9

The Project Manager, NPCC Ltd., Gumla.

¶10

The Manager (Finance) NPCC Ltd. Jharkhand Zone.

¶11

The Zonal Manager, NPCC Ltd., Ranchi. …. …. Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Samir Kr. Lall, Advocate For the Res. Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Sanjay Sah, A.C. to A.A.G. IV For the Respondent No.3 : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶15

¶16

04/04.01.2021 The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the Zonal Manager, National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd., Ranchi-respondent no.7 to forthwith release/refund the amount charged from the petitioner without any plausible explanation and providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners’ representative in relation to the work of construction and maintenance of road under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Group No. Gum-1(C) from Okwa to Bataloya (length:4.00 K.M.) and Pakartoli to Jamtoli, (length:3.700 K.M.), BlockBasia, District-Gumla both under package no.JH-1068, despite acknowledgment of the fact by the respondents that extension of time for completion of the work in question would be granted without any such liquidated damage.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent nos.1 and 2 as well as respondent no.3 and keeping in view that the petitioner representations dated 20^th June, 2019 and 17^th October, 2019 are said to be pending for consideration, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no.7. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.7 after providing due opportunity of

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

hearing to the representative of the petitioner, shall take an appropriate informed decision within a reasonable period.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶22

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶23

Rohit

Ms Maa Bhagwati Construction Represented through One of Its Partners Balraj Anand v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ms Maa Bhagwati Construction Represented through One of Its Partners Balraj Anand v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms the Rameshwara Jute Mills Ltd. through Its Authorized Signatory K K Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hiralal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Santosh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Hiralal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Santosh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Bal Govind Modi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dashmi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Boulevard Enterprises through Its Partner Namely Sandeep Murarka Vs the State of Jharkhand