Satyendra Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8383 of 2015 ====================================================== Satyendra Kumar Yadav S/o Sri Sukhlal Yadav resident of Mohalla- Shastri Nagar, road No. 4, P.s Rampur, District Gaya.3 ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Ruralk Development Department, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan Bailey Road, patna.

2. The Chief Engineer , Rural Works Department, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Rural work Department, Works Division Sherghati, District Gaya.

4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Work Department, Works Division , Sherghati, District Gaya.

5. The District Magistrate, Gaya, District Gaya

6. The Superintendent of Police , Gaya District Gaya.. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sinha For the Respondents :

Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, AAG-14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13-12-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.06.2014 passed by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Sherghati, District- Gaya vide letter no. 624 by which and whereunder the agreement of F2/09-10 has been cancelled and the earnest money and security amount will be forfeited and further directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,68,705/- through Bank Draft within fifteen days.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly accepts that remedy by way of arbitration is available to the petitioner for the relief sought in the writ petition.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8383 of 2015 dt.13-12-2018 2/2

3. 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 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.

4. 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) Ibrar/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 17.12.2018 Transmission Date N.A.