Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/614/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 614 of 2011
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3428 of 2011
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5064 of 2011
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 614 of 2011
=========================================================
VIJAY
RANCHHODBHAI PATEL - Appellant(s)
Versus
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SP HASURKAR for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 25/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA)
The
appellant – writ petitioner challenges the order dated 28th
December 2010 passed by the 1st respondent, whereby it was
ordered to recover a sum of Rs.10,12,375=00 pursuant to a contract
reached between the parties. Further prayer was made to direct the
respondent to make payment of the running bill without deducting any
amount due as sought for by recovery under Order No.Ukai-1/AB-TC/164
dated 24th December 2010 (Annexure-F). It was further
prayed to restrain the respondents from cancelling the registration
of the writ petitioner from the list of approved contractors. Learned
Single Judge, having noticed that it was a mere dispute arising out
of a contract reached between the parties, by impugned order dated
14th March 2011, refused to exercise extra ordinary and
prerogative jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. However, the appellant – respondent was given liberty to
take out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum,
including arbitration proceedings, if any.
After
some argument, as this Court was not inclined to interfere with the
order which related to a contract and the learned Single Judge
refused to exercise extra ordinary and prerogative jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel sought
permission to withdraw the Appeal to enable the appellant –
writ petitioner to move before a civil court of competent
jurisdiction for appropriate relief.
In
view of such, liberty was already given by the learned Single Judge,
we only permit the appellant to move before appropriate forum.
The
Appeal and the Civil Application stand disposed of.
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,
CJ.)
(J.B.Pardiwala,
J.)
/moin
Top