Disposed

The United Sports Works v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC23 Aug 2012CWJC/15148/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the rejection of sports articles. It directed the State and specific police officers to arrange for fresh inspection of the disputed articles by the Central Inspection Committee in the presence of the petitioner's representative within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner has liberty to apply to Respondent No. 4 for fresh inspection by Central Inspection Committee, which must occur in petitioner's presence within three weeks.

The United Sports Works Vs The State Of Bihar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15148 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== The United Sports Works through its Proprietor Vjay Bhasin, son of Late P.C. Bhasin, having its office at opposite Patna Medical College Hospital, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director of General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police, (Operation) Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Inspector General of Police (Provisions and Budget), Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Provisions), Bihar, Patna. 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna. 7. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Human Rights), Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 8. The Commandant, Bihar Military Police-5, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. P.N. Sahi AAG14 Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, AC to AAG 14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 23-08-2012 Sports articles supplied by the petitioner were rejected by the respondents on the ground that they were not as per specification and quality. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a Central Inspection Committee of the respondents which is only authorised to verify the quality and specification of the materials supplied. He submits that this Central Inspection Committee did not inspect the materials supplied and some subordinate officer of respondents submitted a report adverse to him. Hence, he prays

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.15148 of 2012 (2) dt.23-08-2012

¶5

2 / 3

¶6

that this Court may dispose of the writ application with a direction to respondent no.4, Inspector General of Police (Provisions and Budget), to get the articles supplied by petitioner inspected by the Central Inspection Committee in the presence of petitioner or its representative and allow the representative to explain any discrepancy which may be pointed out by the Committee in the articles supplied by it. In this connection he submits that the Central Inspection Committee may take into account Annexures 9 to 11 annexed with the writ application while inspecting the articles.

¶7

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if this Court grants some time, respondents may file counter affidavit.

¶8

Since this Court does not propose to pass any positive order in favour of the petitioner, it may not be necessary to call for a counter affidavit in the matter.

¶9

This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application before respondent no.4, Inspector General of Police (Provisions and Budget), Government of Bihar, Patna requesting him for fresh inspection of the articles supplied by it by the Central Inspection Committee, in presence of any representative of petitioner. Respondent no.4 shall consider the same and take an appropriate

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.15148 of 2012 (2) dt.23-08-2012

¶11

3 / 3

¶12

decision in accordance with law as early as possible and preferably within three weeks. If he orders for such inspection in which any discrepancy in respect of quality and specification of the articles supplied by petitioner is found by the Committee, the same shall be rejected. Thereafter in case petitioner is aggrieved by any fresh report submitted by the Central Inspection Committee or fresh decision taken by the respondents, it will be open for the petitioner to move appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶13

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶14

B.T/-

The United Sports Works v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United Sports Works v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Messers Kumar Stone Works Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Abdul Hafiz Khan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Ganesh Ram Dokania Engineers and Contractors Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Raj Paper Products and Anr. Vs The Central Bank Of India and Ors.

M/s Vishal Builtech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The East Central Railway and Or5s

M/s Swastik Associates Vs The Union Of India and Ors.