Patna High CourtCWJC/3577/2014dismissed

M/S P.K. Construction v. The Union Of India And ORS

2016-01-04Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3577 of 2014 ======================================================

1. M/S P.K. Construction Through Its Partner Phool Kant Chaudhary Son Of Sri Ram Sevak Chaudhary Resident Of Village - Lagunia Raghukanth, P.S. - Muffasil, Samastipur, District - Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union Of India Through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur, Vaishali

2. Divisional Railway Manager (Engineering), E.C. Railway, Samastipur

3. Senior Divisional Engineer - 1, E.C. Railway, Samastipur

4. Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordination), E.C. Railway, Samastipur

5. Assistant Engineer - 1, E.C. Railway, Darbhanga

6. Senior Section Engineer Works, E.C. Railway, Darbhanga .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha-3 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mahesh Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT 04-01-2016 The present writ application has been filed for quashing the letter No. W/98/D-281/W-1 dated 27.09.2013 issued by the respondent no.2 whereby the P.V.C. bill dated 6.09.2013 has been returned on the ground that before release of the security deposit amount of the petitioner, he has submitted no claim certificate.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid bill dated 06.09.2013 has been paid and returned arbitrarily without making payment.

3. A Perusal of the impugned order dated 27.09.2013 discloses that the bill in question has been returned in

Patna High Court CWJC No.3577 of 2014 (2) dt.04-01-2016 2/2 the light of the no claim certificate having been unconditionally submitted by the petitioner . This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner.

4. In that view of the matter, this court is not inclined to interfere in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The application is dismissed. However, this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner to make representation before the appropriate forum as may be available to him in accordance with law.

(Vikash Jain, J) M.Rahman/- U