Shankar Sah v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1370 of 2011 ====================================================== Shankar Sah, son of late Lochan Sah, resident of Mohalla-Arya Samaj Road, Samastipur, P.S.-Samastipur, District-Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through its Managing Director, Central Ware Housing Corporation, Maurya Lok, Patna.
2. Central Ware Housing Corporation through its Managing Director, Maurya Lok, Patna.
3. Managing Director, Central Ware Housing Corporation, Maurya Lok, Patna.
4. Regional Manager, Central Ware Housing Corporation, Maurya Lok, 3rd Floor, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Mr. Rahul Nath For the Respondent no.1: Mrs. Kanak Verma, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2015 Heard the parties.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents for refund of the security money, which he claims to have deposited for executing the contract work allotted to him.
In the whole writ petition, neither the contract document nor the order forfeiting his security deposit has been brought on the record. Even the date of contract and date of the order passed by the competent authority forfeiting his security money have not been mentioned by the writ petitioner. Not even a single document in support of his claim has been brought on record by the writ petitioner. This is a completely vague, misconceived and untenable writ petition and the Court could have imposed heavy costs for filing this frivolous writ petition, but in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel, who is quite
Patna High Court CWJC No.1370 of 2011 (5) dt.06-05-2015 young, appearing for the petitioner, this Court restrains itself from imposing any cost against the petitioner.
However, for the reasons recorded above, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U