Patna High CourtCWJC/23337/2013disposed

Shankar Kumar Vatsa v. The Union Of India And ORS

2018-12-05Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23337 of 2013 ====================================================== Shankar Kumar Vatsa Son Of Sri Madan Jha Resident Of Mohalla - Agarwa 700, P.O. Motihari, P.S. Motihari Town, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union Of India Through Divisional Railway Manager, Samastipur

2. General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur

3. Divisional Railway Manager, Samastipur

4. Sr. Divisional Engineer/ Ii, East Central Railway, Samastipur

5. A.D.R.M. Samastipur

6. Co - Ordinater ( Engineer), East Central Railway, Samastipur

7. A.E.N., East Central Railway, Narkatiaganj ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar No.III, Adv For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Termination Notice No. W/98/out post/W-1/34 dated 05.06.2013 issued by the respondent no. 4 whereby and whereunder rescinded the contract Agreement No. DRM/TC 348 dated 15.06.2011 in connection with construction of barrack of Railway Protection Force, Narkatiaganj and Raxaul and out post of Bugha; and for connected reliefs.

3. At the very outset, this Court takes note that remedy by way of arbitration is available to the petitioner for the relief sought in the writ petition.

4. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the

Patna High Court CWJC No.23337 of 2013 dt.05-12-2018 2/2 arbitration clause for redressal of his grievances. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

5. It is made clear that in case such an application is filed, the concerned authority would have regard to the present proceeding being pursued by the petitioner while considering any issue relating to condonation of delay, if applicable.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 12.12.2018 Transmission Date NA