Dismissed

Ms Binay Kumar through Its Proprietor Shri Binay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2023WPC/5313/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition filed by a contractor seeking payment of dues illegally deducted as labour cess. The Court held that no public law element was involved, finding the petition not maintainable under Article 226 due to the absence of a public law issue and unreasonable delay. The petitioner was advised to pursue private law remedies.

What did the court decide?

Discussed the amendment to search-1.0 schema in the system instructions. The prompt does not contain information about changes to the schema.

Ms Binay Kumar through Its Proprietor… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No.5313 of 2021

¶3

¶4

M/s. Binay Kumar, through its Proprietor, Binay Kumar

¶5

.......... Petitioner.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶9

Engineer-in-Chief, Building Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶10

Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Circle, Hazaribagh.

¶11

Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Hazaribagh.

¶12

.......... Respondents.

¶13

CORAM : HON’BL	----- E MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR -----
For the Petitioner	: Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, Advocate
For the State	: Mr. Saurav Mahto, A.C. to G.P.II -----

¶14

Order No.06 Date: 21.03.2023

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of due amount of Rs.3,89,920/-, which has illegally been deducted as labour cess from the payment made to the petitioner in execution of construction work under Building Division, Hazaribagh. Further prayer has been made for declaring that letter no.809 dated 20^th June, 2014 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Building Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi addressed to all Executive Engineers of the Department regarding deduction of 1% labour cess is not applicable in the case of the petitioner’s bill(s) raised towards execution of various construction works during financial year 2009-10 to 2013 -14.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, this Court is of the view that there is no public law element involved in the present writ petition and, thus, the same is not worth consideration under Article 226 of the Constriction of India. Otherwise also, the

¶17

-2-

¶18

petitioner has not been able to satisfactorily explain the unreasonable delay in seeking recourse against deduction of labour cess for the construction made between the financial years 2009-10 to 201314.The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.

¶19

The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse for redressal of its grievance invoking private law remedy.

¶20

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶21

Sanjay/

Ms Binay Kumar through Its Proprietor Shri Binay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Binay Kumar through Its Proprietor Shri Binay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Ms Magadh Micro Towers and Transmission Private Limited through Pranav Parimal Vs the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director

Ms Magadh Micro Towers and Transmission Private Limited through One of the Director Pranav Parimal Vs the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director

Rahim Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vinita Siddharth Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

MD Arshad Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Parvej Khan Alias Jyoti Vs the State of Jharkhand