High Court Jharkhand High Court

M/S Eurl Shree International vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd & on 5 October, 2009

Jharkhand High Court
M/S Eurl Shree International vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd & on 5 October, 2009
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             L.P.A. No. 87 of 2009
              M/s. EURL Shree International, Bangalore ...             Appellant
                                             Versus
              1. Steel Authority of India Limited
              2. Central Industrial Security Force, Bokaro
              3. Superintendent of Police, Bokaro
              4. District Magistrate, Bokaro
              5. The State of Jharkhand      ...        ...      ...       ...        Respondents
                                          ------
              CORAM:        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.C.S. RAWAT
                                          ------
              For the Appellant:          Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Vineet Kumar
                                   Vashistha, Abhinesh Kumar
              For the Respondents: M/s. J.C. to A.G., M.A. Khan, Ananda
                                   Sen
                                          ------

7/ 05.10.2009

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.1.2009
passed in W.P. (C) No. 136 of 2009 whereby the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition by passing the following orders: –

“The present writ petition has been preferred
seeking a writ of mandamus to take action on the
petitioner’s complain about the theft, criminal
interdivision, dacoity committed by the unknown persons
within the premises of respondent No.1 plant. It has also
prayed for security and investigation on the complain filed
by the petitioner.

The main contention raised by the petitioner is that
the petitioner wants that full security should be granted
within the plant area. The prayer in the writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable
since there are specific provisions in Cr.P.C. for redressal
of the grievance of the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, this writ petition, being not maintainable, is
accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.”

On the earlier occasion, the matter was heard and the parties were
advised to sit together and resolve their disputes. In spite of sufficient time
allowed, the parties have not come to a amicable settlement.

Since there is no error in the impugned judgment, in our view,
there is no reason to keep the appeal pending which is, accordingly,
dismissed. However, dismissal of this appeal will not be a bar for the
parties to again sit together and resolve their disputes.

(M. Y. Eqbal, J)

( J. C. S. Rawat , J)
Manoj/