Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dileep Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2016
:: 1 ::
Writ Petition No.19165/2016
1.12.2016.
None for the petitioner.
When the matter was taken up in the first round, Shri
Rammilan Saket, learned counsel appeared and submitted that the
petition be posted along with WP-18847-2016; however, when
called upon to make submission on admission, he prayed for pass
over. When the matter was taken up in pass over, no one
appeared. It was, therefore, directed to be placed on Board at
2:30 PM. At 2:30 PM when the matter is placed on Board, no one
appear on behalf of the petitioner.
Perused the pleadings.
Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is directed against the order-dated 30.9.2016; whereby,
petitioner is called upon to make good the difference of amount of
the construction of Bholgarh approach Road 3 Kms (B.T. Renewal)
which has been carried out by the respondent at the risk and cost
of petitioner after termination of contract.
It is stated by Shri S.K. Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State that the petitioner has remedy under the terms of contract by raising a dispute before the Arbitrator.
Consequently, petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to avail the remedy available to him under the relevant contract. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV)
vinod JUDGE