Jharkhand High Court
M/S Bbta-Rcpl (Jv) vs State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy ... on 2 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 1775 of 2024
----
M/s BBTA-RCPL (JV), a Joint Venture firm represented through one of the partner namely Tanmoy Mishra, aged about 37 years, S/o-Sri Nitai Mishra, having its office at 361/143 Vidyasagar Sarani, P.O. -Chelidanga, Asansol, P.S.:-
Asansol, District-Paschim Bardhaman (West Bengal).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O. + P.S. + District-Pakur, Jharkhand.
2.Additional Collector-cum-Chairman Overdue redressal Committee, Pakur, P.O. + P.S.+District-Pakur, Jharkhand.
3.Sub-Divisioinal Officer, Pakur, P.O. + P.S.+District-Pakur, Jharkhand.
4.PANEM Coal Mines Limited, through its executive director, having its registrerd office at 3rd Floor, 6 Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, P.O. +P.S.-Vasant Vihar, District - South West Delhi.
5.Punjab State Power Corporatioin Ltd. through Chief Engineer (Fuel), having office at PSEB head office, Mall Road, Patiala, P.O. + P.S. + District - Patiala (Punjab), Local address: PSPCL Office, Saksham Palace, Tatipara Road, Opposite Mini Suchitra Cinema Hall, P.O. + P.S. + District- Pakur, Jharkhand.
6.EMTA Coal Ltd, through its executive director having its registered office at Office-5, B Nandalal Basu Sarani,P.O.-
Middleton Row, P.S.-Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-710071 (West Bengal) ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the Res-State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG For Res. No. 5 : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
--------
-1- Order No. 04 : Dated 2nd August, 2024
1. The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for direction upon the respondents to pay the admitted dues of Rs. 80,27,863/- in relation to the bill for coal transporting job under PANEM Coal Mines Ltd., as also interest over the amount in question.
2. At the outset, Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned AC to Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has vehemently argued that grievance which the writ petitioner has raised is not fit to be entertained as whatever claim has been made that pertains to contractual obligation in between the petitioner and respondent no. 4, therefore, the respondent no. 5 has nothing to do with the same.
3. It has further been submitted that dispute redressal mechanism is available to the petitioner.
4. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach appropriate forum/authority for redressal of his grievance.
5. In view of such submission, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to search out the remedy for remedy of his grievance.
-2-
6. With the liberty aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Alankar/ -3-