Dismissed

Sheshadri Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Aug 2019CWJC/12983/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a communication refusing additional work. The Court held that scope of work disputes and satisfaction of authorities fall outside writ jurisdiction and belong to the Bihar Public Works Contract Arbitration Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed; no interference with Annexure 11.

Sheshadri Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Bihar — Company and Corporate | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12983 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Sheshadri Engineers Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Anita Sinha Female- age 56 years, W/o Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Resident of 2B, Khushivilla Apartments, East Boring Canal Road BSP office Sindhi Colony Phulwari P.S. Budha Colony, Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Nirman Bhawan, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Nirman Bhawan, Patna.

¶8

The Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. through its Managing Director.

¶9

The Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd.

¶10

The Deputy Chief Engineer, Works Circle No.-01, Patna, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd.

¶11

The Deputy Chief Engineer, Works Circle No.-01, Patna, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd.

¶12

The Senior Project Engineer, Works Division, Muzaffarpur, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd.

¶13

The Project Engineer, Works Division, Muzaffarpur, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd., Muzaffarpur.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

======================================================

¶16

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Binita Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Raj Ballabh Pd. Yadav (Aag11)

¶17

======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶19

2 07-08-2019 A counter affidavit has been filed today. Let it be

¶20

kept on record.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel representing the Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Ltd. assisted by learned Advocate-onRecord.

¶22

Petitioner in the present case is aggrieved by the

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.12983 of 2019(2) dt.07-08-2019 2/4

¶24

communication as contained in letter no. 593 dated 01.06.2019

¶25

which reads as under:

¶26

“izs’kd] ojh; ifj;kstuk vfHk;ark] fcgkj jkT; iqy fuekZ.k fuxe fy0] dk;Z izeaMy] eqt¶QjiqjA lsok esa] Sheshadri Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 2B, Khushi Villa, Sindhi Colony, East Boring Canal Road, Patna.-800001. fo’k; %& eqt¶Qjiqj “kgj esa v[kkM+k ?kkV fLFkr xaMd unh ij iwoZ fufeZr mPpLrjh; vkj0lh0lh0 iqy ds lekukUrj Mkmu LVªhe esa u, mPpLrjh; vkj0lh0lh0 iqy fuekZ.k ds laca/k esaA izlax%& vkidk i=kad& SEPL/BRPNNL/2019/01, Dated- 17.01.2019, SEPL/BRPNNL/2019/02, Dated05.02.2019 & SEPL/BRPNNL/2019/04, Dated- 26.02.2019 egk”k;] mi;qZDr fo’k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd fnukad& 22-052019 dks lEiUu ekfld leh{kkRed cSBd esa mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk izkIr funs”k ds vkyksd esa vkids }kjk leqfpr (Cable Stayed exrtra does/Suspension bridge etc.) P.P.R lefiZr ugha fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i v|ksgLrk{kjh }kjk fuxZr dk;kZns”k ¼i=kad&1054] fnukad& 14-09-2018½ dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA lwpukFkZ izsf’krA

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that the scope of work

¶28

which were subject matter of the work order issued to the petitioner did not include certain works which the respondents were looking for and in fact the petitioner had submitted the

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.12983 of 2019(2) dt.07-08-2019 3/4

¶30

Preliminary Project Report but then that was not accepted and the respondents wrote to the petitioner an E-mail dated 28.07.2018 as contained in Annexure ‘1’ to the writ application calling upon the petitioner to do certain works. Learned counsel submits that even the bill of the petitioner for submission of the Preliminary Project Report has not been paid and now the respondents have published a fresh tender.

¶31

Learned Senior Counsel representing the Corporation submits that in case the petitioner is not satisfied with the communication as contained in Annexure ‘11’ to the writ application, he has a remedy available in terms of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Bihar Public Works Contract Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2009. It is submitted that the issues with regard to the scope of work and the satisfaction of the respondent authorities with regard to the Preliminary Project Report submitted by the petitioner need not be gone into by this Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction. It is further informed that the petitioner has participated in the fresh tender.

¶32

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation and upon going through the records available, this Court finds that in this case in fact the petitioner is looking for a declaration that the

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.12983 of 2019(2) dt.07-08-2019 4/4

¶34

Preliminary Project Report submitted by the petitioner is in accordance with the scope of work. This Court is of the considered opinion that the issue which is being raised by the petitioner cannot be gone into by this Court and the Court’s satisfaction is not required to substitute the satisfaction of the respondent authorities who have to do the work and/or get it done. In case the petitioner is not satisfied with the communication as contained in Annexure ‘11’ to the writ application, he has a remedy available before the Arbitration Tribunal in terms of the Bihar Public Works Contract Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2009. The issues with regard to non-payment of bills may also be raised before the Arbitration Tribunal.

¶35

With the aforesaid observations, this Court is disposing of the writ application finding no reason to interfere with Annexure ‘11’ in its writ jurisdiction but that would not be taken as an opinion of this Court on the merit of the case of the petitioner and it will always open to him under the provisions of the Bihar Public Works Contract Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2009.

¶36

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶37

arvind/-

¶38

Sheshadri Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheshadri Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vishnu Devi Vs U C O Bank and Ors.

Amit Rai @ Mithilesh Rai @ Mithelesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rupesh Kumar Baidya Vs The General Manager, Bank Of Baroda and Ors.

Arjun Gupta Vs The State of Bihar

Amarjeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dilip Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar