The High Court of Odisha disposed of a writ petition filed by a joint venture company challenging non-disbursement of dues from a coal extraction work order. The Court held that writ jurisdiction is not appropriate for commercial disputes with available alternative remedies and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition not entertained and disposed of.
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 ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12069 of 2021
M/s. KJSL-UTKAL (JV)
…. Petitioner Mr. S. S. Das, Advocate
-versus-
…. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Opposite Parties and others
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE K. R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER 08.06.2021
Order No.
Page 1 of 4
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, which is a registered company in the name and style as M/s. KJSL-UTKAL (JV), Angul, has challenged the action of the opposite parties in not disbursing its legitimate dues.
During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for a direction to the opposite party no.1-General Manager, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Angul to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 14.09.2018 under Annexure-3 within a stipulated time.
Considering the limited nature of prayer and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the opposite party no.1General Manager, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Angul to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 14.09.2018 under Annexure-3 in accordance with law, if the same is still pending, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application."
Page 2 of 4
Rs.5993740/- had already been paid to the Petitioner on 14th May 2012, after deducting of "shortfall penalty" of Rs.5162047/-".
Page 3 of 4
Nevertheless, there are other appropriate remedies for the Petitioner to invoke for redressal of its grievances.
2021.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
( K. R. Mohapatra )
Judge
S. K. Guin
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether repeated invocation of writ jurisdiction for redressal of a dispute arising out of a work order is appropriate.
Whether the petitioner has availed the specific dispute settlement procedure outlined in the work order's general terms and conditions.
M/s. KJSL-UTKAL (JV)
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited
Justice K. R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
