Patna High CourtCWJC/10702/2017dismissed

Tarkeshwar Ojha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-08-04The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10702 of 2017 ====================================================== Tarkeshwar Ojha, son of Late Raghubir Ojha, resident of MohallaKankarbagh, P.S.-Kankarbagh, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Chairman, Bihar Public Works Construction Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Maurya Lok Complex, B-Block, 3rd Floor, Patna

3. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

4. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

5. Arun Kumar, Member (Technical Engineer), Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Maurya Lok Complex, Block-B, 3rd Floor, Patna

6. Ram Prakash Singh Member (Technical Engineer), Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Maurya Lok Complex, Block-B, 3rd Floor, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Pd. Yadav- AAG11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 04-08-2017 Inter alia, contending that the Tribunal in question is functioning contrary to the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, the petitioner has filed this writ petition in public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution instead of first raising the issue with the Government authorities and pointing out the irregularities to the Government authorities. Filing of a writ petition directly before this Court without taking up the issue first with the concerned authority of the Government

Patna High Court CWJC No.10702 of 2017 (2) dt.04-08-2017 2/2 is not proper.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) S.Pandey/- U