Patna High CourtCWJC/800/2018dismissed

Dinesh Kumar v. The Union Of India And ORS

2018-07-12Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

Patna High Court CWJC No.800 of 2018 dt.12-07-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.800 of 2018 =========================================================== Dinesh Kumar S/o late Kedar Prasad Singh Resident of Ward No. 17, Ghosh Lane, P.O. +P.S.- Samastipur, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India represented through the General Manager, Eastern Central Railway, Hajipur.

2. The General Manager, Eastern Central Railway, Hajipur.

3. The Senior Divisional Engineer/I, Eastern Central Railway, Samastipur.

4. The Divisional Engineer, Eastern Central Railway, Samastipur.

5. The Assistant Divisional Engineer/II, Eastern Central Railway, Darbhanga. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava Ms. Anu Priyadarshni, Ms. Rinki Kumari, Advocates For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-07-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for payment of contractual dues amounting to Rs. 4,43,532.56 pursuant to work done in respect of Contract Agreement No. DRM/T.C./244 dated 24.06.2008.

2. Having heard the parties, it would appears that the claim of the petitioner has been disputed by the respondents who, by their letter dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure-P/8), have treated the matter as closed and no bill of the petitioner is stated to be pending with them.

3. In the above view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the petitioner's claim. It is admitted that

Patna High Court CWJC No.800 of 2018 dt.12-07-2018 remedy by way of arbitration is available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievances.

4. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to invoke arbitration in accordance with law.

5. It is made clear that in case such remedy of arbitration is availed of, 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) Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.07.2018 Transmission Date NA