Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Dipak Sarkar vs The West Bengal State Electricity ... on 27 July, 2011

Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                     In The High Court At Calcutta
                              Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                       Appellate Side


Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                           W.P.No.25829(W) of 2010
                                 Dipak Sarkar
                                       -vs-
       The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors.

       Mr. Gautam Narayan Bhattacharjee                    ....for the petitioner

       Mr. Sourav Chowdhury                                      ....for WBSEDCL

 Heard on : July 27, 2011

Judgment on : July 27, 2011

       The Court : The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated December 24,
2010 is seeking the following principal relief:
       "a) A writ and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
respondents to forthwith renew the job contracts of the petitioner in accordance

with law."

By a letter dated December 20, 2010 (at p.38) West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited informed the petitioner that his job contract would not be renewed.

Relevant part of the letter dated December 20, 2010 is quoted below:

"The Job-Contract order issued vide Memo. No. HBD/ JOB CONTRACT /3243 dt. 01.02.2010 is validated upto 31.12.2010 and WBSEDCL is not interested to renew the said job contract on contractual basis further on ground of UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE."

Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was satisfactorily executing the jobs, alleging unsatisfactory performance the renewal request was rejected.

It is not the case that alleging unsatisfactory performance the Company could not refuse to renew the petitioner's request for renewal of the job contract. In any case, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to the public law remedy under art.226. The job contract between the parties was a pure private law contract. No public law element was involved in the Company's refusal to renew the contract. The petitioner's remedy, if any, was before the Civil Court.

For these reasons, I dismiss the petition making it clear that nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from approaching the Civil Court according to law. No costs. Certified xerox.

(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sb