Smt. Sushila Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.2148 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10751 of 2014 =========================================================== Smt. Sushila Devi, wife of Bharat Kumar Yadav, resident of village - Chukti, Police Station - Mansi, District - Khagaria .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The District Magistrate, Khagaria
3. Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation, Patna through its Managing Director, Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna.
4. The District Manager, State Food Corporation, Khagaria
5. The Deputy Chief Bhandaran, Mukhyalaya, Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna.
6. The House Controller - cum - S.D.O. Khagaria .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For BSFC : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Birju Prasad, GP-13 Mr. Ashok Kumar, AC to GP-13 Mr. Amresh, AC to GP-13 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI And HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 09-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation.
The learned Single Judge has refused to exercise his jurisdiction in matter of payment of so called arrears of rent for godowns which purportedly had been hired by the Corporation for storage purposes.
Patna High Court LPA No.2148 of 2015 dt.09-03-2017 2/2 The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that there was no agreement which was produced before the Court. There was dispute with regard to hire and the number of godowns which were hired and for the rent or the rate on which such payment was required to be made, was a matter which was adjudicated by the House Controller. If in this jumble of facts the learned Single Judge has refused to exercise his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he did no wrong. The appellant is not remediless.
The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) S.Pandey/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 10.03.2017 Transmission Date