Raj Printing Press v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2265 of 2023 ====================================================== Raj Printing Press through its Owner Raj Kumar, aged about-57 years, Gender- Male, Son of Late Bhbneshwar Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Prasad Bigha, P.S. and District- Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Director, Bihar State Health Society Department, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate and Collector, Nawada. 3.

The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Secretary, District Health Society, Nawada. 4.

The District Malaria Officer, Nawada.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Adv. With Mr. Bhola Kumar, Adv. With Mr. Ashish Sinha, Adv. With Mr. Ravi Shankar, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Binod Kr. Yadav (Sc18) with Mr. Aditya Nath Jha, AC to SC-18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2023

1. Heard the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are certain admitted dues as against the respondents, which they have not released.

3. This Court had earlier allowed the petitioner to withdraw his writ petition with liberty to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum in C.W.J.C. No. 19540 of 2013 Raj Printing Press through its Owner Raj Kumar, Nawada Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), vide order dated 25th June, 2014. The petitioner thereafter approached the forum of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.2265 of 2023(2) dt.23-03-2023 2/2 Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, who has rejected the reference as not maintainable. The writ petition has been preferred afresh before this Court.

4. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 came into force w.e.f. 21.08.2018 and Commercial Courts have already been established. As per definition of Commercial Disputes provided under the Act of 2015, the dispute being raised by the petitioner for claiming his dues under the works contract, are within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. The petitioner has wrongfully preferred this writ petition again before this Court in spite of earlier directions.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Pravinkumar/- Item No. 24 U