At, High Court of Jharkhand
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
For the Petitioner: Vijay Ranjan Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondents: Swati Shalini, Advocate.
1. Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the respondent B.C.C.L., accepts notice on its behalf.
2. The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein following relief(s) have been sought for :-
"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s) upon the respondent to payment the arrear of dues of the petitioner firm which has done the work of repair of heavy, light vehicles, pay loaders and machine to the tune of Rs.83,750/-, which is lying pending before the respondent no.4 and on one products (sic : pretext) or another the payment has not been made only because the Kustor Area of B.C.C.L.
which has faced scam of 116 crores by some contractors.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) and/or direction(s) upon the respondent to payment of interest and cost to the dues is lying pending since 2010."
3. Mr. Vijay Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that in a similar nature of case being W.P.(C) No.4706 of 2013, this Court has passed an order and, as such, prayer has been made to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforesaid order passed in W.P.(C) No.4706 of 2013, disposed of on 05.02.2021.
4. The copy of the order has been made available to Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the B.C.C.L. She, after going through the same, has submitted that the matter may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order dated 05.02.2021 in W.P.(C) No.4706 of 2013.
5. The grievance as has been made on behalf of the petitioner is that the claim which is the subject matter of the writ petition, has been ventilated by submitting representation before the concerned respondent for disbursement of an amount of Rs.83,750/-, but the same is still lying pending.
6. Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for respondent B.C.C.L., has submitted that appropriate direction may be passed commanding upon the authority concerned to take decision on the pending representation, as appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, if not already decided.
7. This Court, after considering the submission made on behalf of the parties as also taking into consideration that the representation has been filed on 22.06.2013, deems it fit and proper to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit fresh representation for taking a decision, in accordance with law, if the prayer has not been decided in terms of the representation dated 22.06.2013, as appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
Such representation be filed before Respondent No.3 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The same is to be decided within a further per
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
iod of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. It is made clear that this Court has not scrutinized the claim of the writ petitioner on its merit. The concerned authority will take decision on its merit, in accordance with law. 8. This writ petition stands disposed of.