← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3413/2015withdrawn

Yugal S/O Maniklal Bhattad v. Coal India Limited Through Its Chairman, Kolkata And 3 Others

2016-03-03Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar2 pages

0303wp3413.15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3413/2015 Yugal s/o Maniklal Bhattad ...Versus...

Coal India Limited, through its Chairman, Kolkata - 01 and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.M. Sudame, Advocate for petitioner Shri C.S. Samudra, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : 03.03.2016 By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Chief Manager, SECL, HQ, Bilaspur, dated 31.3.2015 directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.7,40,126.64 with SECL Account so that the terminal dues payable to the petitioner could be processed.

Shri Samudra, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. It is stated that no part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is stated that the petitioner has challenged the order of the Chief Manager, SECL, Bilaspur and it would be necessary for the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in Chhattisgarh.

0303wp3413.15.odt In view of the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3, Shri Sudame, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition so that he would be able to file appropriate proceedings in Chhattisgarh.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.

The petitioner is free to file appropriate proceedings at Chhattisgarh. The points raised in the petition are kept open. JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar