Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Amkay Construction Company vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 13 June, 2022
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2417 of 2022
M/s Amkay Construction Company A Proprietorship Firm Having Its Head
Office At 8a-Himalaya Complex, Supela, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Through Its
Sole Proprietor Tapan Das S/o Late M.C. Das, Aged About 57 Years, R/o
151/f Maitrinagar, Phase-2, Risali, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Steel Authority Of India Limited A Maharatna Company, Incorporated
Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered
Office At Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Through Its Managing
Director-Cum-Chairman, Steel Authority Of India, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi
2. Bhilai Steel Plant A Under The Steel Authority Of India Through Its Chief
General Manager And Acvo Vigilance Department, Bhilai Steel Plant,
Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.)
3. M/s Gea Process Engineering (India) Private Limited A Company
Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, Through Its
Director Having Its Registered Officer At Block 8, Post Office Dumad,
Savli Road, Vadodra, Gujrat And Corporate Office At 3rd Floor, Coral
Square Vijay Garden Naka, Ghodbunder Road, Thane (W), Maharashtra
4. M/s M. Mohan Engineer And Contractor Through Its Proprietorship M.
Mohan Having Its Office At Shop No. 87-A, B-Market, Sector 4, Bhilai
Distt. Durg (C.G.)
5. Shri Biplab Dey Posted As Cgm (Projects-Coke And Mills) Of Bhilai Steel
Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 13/06/2022
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:
"10.1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record for the respondents with regard to action taken by the respondents on the complaint of the petitioner. 10.2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct an investigation on the complaint made by the petitioner with official position regarding making proper investigation and completion of its within stipulated time against the respondent No.5."2
2. The primary grievance of the petitioner seems to be the awarding of contract by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 instead of the petitioner. It is a case where the respondent No.2 had awarded a contract for the execution of certain works to the respondent No.3. In the contract executed between the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 there was a clause in favour of the respondent No.3 in getting the work executed by engaging sub-contract. It appears that the respondent No.3 initially came in contact with the petitioner for the purpose of awarding sub-contract. However, subsequently the said sub-contract was awarded in favour of the respondent No.4. It is this action which is being challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the entire action was at the behest of the respondent No.5 a senior officer of the respondents No. 1 & 2. He however submits that the respondent No.5 since has now retired.
4. Given the entire facts and circumstances of the case in the given factual backdrop this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for issuance of a writ in favour of the petitioner at this juncture.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands rejected. However, the right of the petitioner stands reserved to avail such other appropriate remedies available to him under law.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved