Rajeev Kumar Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2313 of 2023 ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar Choudhary Son of Late Binod Narayan Choudhary, R/o Satpura Colony, P.S.- Musahri, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Engineer in Chief, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Chief Engineer (North), Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Darbhanga. 5.

The Executive Engineer, Building Circle, Darbhanga. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raju Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhash, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Shobha Choubey, AC to GP 19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 29-03-2023

1. The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, has prayed as under:- "1. That the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition invoking the extra writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court inter alia for the following reliefs:- (I) To issue an appropriate order/s, direction/s including a writ preferably in nature of Mandamus commanding and directing upon the respondents to make the payment of a sum of Rs. 64,91,593/- (Rupees Sixty Four Lacs Ninety One Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Three) only to the petitioner who has completed the work

Patna High Court CWJC No.2313 of 2023(2) dt.29-03-2023 2/2 for construction of Block I.T. Center Building at Sadarf Block in District Darbhanga for the year 2017-18. (II) To direct the respondents to make the payment of above mentioned admittee dues of the petitioner with penal interest on account of delay and latches on the part of the respondents.

(III) To any other relief/s to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. In view of the provisions of the Commercial Court Act, 2015, the remedy lies for claiming the said amount to the Commercial Court/Civil Court.

3. The petitioner having an an alternate efficacious remedy available in law, the writ petition would not be maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Sachin/- Item No. 7 U