← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/21567/2013dismissed

Rambali Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-06-29Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21567 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Rambali Prasad aged about 60 years S/O Late Nanhu Prasad Resident Of Village- Ganglobigha, Police Station- Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad.

3. The Block Development Officer, Makhdumpur, Jehanabad.

4. The Labour Inspector, Makhdumpur,Jehanabad.

5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Rajya Panchayat Jagpura Makhdumpur, Jehanabad.

6. The Mukhiya Gram Rajya Panchayat Jagpura, Makhdumpur, Jehanabad. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kr. Ambastha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 29-06-2016 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. Two counter affidavits are filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

Claiming himself has labour contractor/labour, the writ application is filed for a direction upon the respondents, particularly, the authorities of the Gram Panchayat to make payment of the labour cost to the petitioner as the petitioner supplied work force in execution of scheme no. 01 of 2012-13 executed by the Panchayat.

From the counter affidavit, it appears the respondents have taken a stand that all due payments have been made. The

Patna High Court CWJC No.21567 of 2013 (2) dt.29-06-2016 2/2 status of the petitioner as the supplier of labour has been disputed. Further, on perusal of para 14 of the counter affidavit , it appears the matter has been raised before the Labour Court, Jehanabad vide proceeding no. 232 of 2013-14. A matter like this cannot be agitated in writ petition as diverse facts have to be appreciated. That apart, the petitioner has already knocked the doors of the Court for the relief. The writ application does not deserves further order to be passed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Dismissal of this application shall, however, not prejudice the case of the petitioner in the pending litigation before the Labour Court.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U