Dismissed

Sulekha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC1 Mar 2016CWJC/10566/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of an MoU for a school for children with mental disabilities. The court held relief could not be granted on the merits as the dispute falls under the specific arbitration mechanism provided in the agreement.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of; petitioner granted liberty to ventilate grievance before the appropriate forum (Arbitrator) after seeking condonation of delay.

Sulekha Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10566 of 2013

¶3

=========================================================== Sulekha Kumari W/O Sri Shivajee Kumar R/O Mohalla- 1/B, Harendra Complex, New Bahadurpur, Bazar Samittee Road, Rajendra Nagar, District- Patna

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

1. The Director, Directorate of Social Security & Disability, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶8

1. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga 4. The Assistant Director Social Security Cell, Collectorate, Darbhanga 5. The Additional Collector Darbhanga

¶9

.... .... Respondent/s

¶10

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha For the State Mr. Pravin Kr. Verma AC to SC 26

¶11

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-03-2016

¶12

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha for the petitioner and the counsel for

¶13

the State.

¶14

The petitioner is a registered Society engaged in running institution/school for the children having mental disabilities as per the MoU/agreement dated 23.11.2012 reached between the petitioner and the government. It appears, since the petitioner failed in providing the required infrastructure for running the said school/institution, the respondent cancelled the MoU/agreement on 27.04.2013. The writ petition was filed on 15.05.2013 seeking a direction upon the respondents to provide the grant-in-aid for the infrastructure of the school in question run by the petitioner under the MoU/agreement.

¶15

In the counter affidavit, the respondents have enclosed the communication dated 27.04.2013 (Annexure-L) cancelling the MoU/agreement.

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.10566 of 2013 dt.01-03-2016

¶17

2/2

¶18

The petitioner wants to challenge the cancellation of MoU by fling I.A. No. 1860 of 2016.

¶19

Indisputably, the said order has not been passed after institution/filing of the writ petition. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to allow the said interlocutory application. That apart, the right and obligation of the parties stems from the agreement/MoU. If there is any violation thereof, the same can be raised before an appropriate forum/authority in accordance with law. In a case of such dispute the matter can be raised before the Secretary, Dept. of Social Welfare, Bihar vide clause 24 of the MoU. The petitioner has remedy of approaching the Arbitrator, as provided under Clause 24 of the MoU. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶20

The writ application stands disposed of granting the petitioner the liberty to ventilate her grievance before the appropriate forum/authority in accordance with law after seeking condonation of delay, if any, on the ground that the petitioner had been pursuing her remedy in this Court.

¶21

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶22

HR/-

¶23

Sulekha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulekha Kumari 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

Satish Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Radhika Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Navalak Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Rajneesh Kumar Priyadarshi Vs The State Of Bihar

Sulekha Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar