Chankya Technos Pvt.Ltd. vs G.M.,East Central Railway Hazi on 2 September, 2011

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CWJC No.9382 of 2011
             Chankya Technos Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Ravi Shankar Pathak,
             son of Late Hari Shankar Pathak, Shiv Kripa House No. 23, Road No.
             D, Shivpuri, Patna.
                                                                  ...... Petitioner.
                                            Versus
             1. General Manager East Central Railway, Hazipur.
             2. Deputy Chief Engineer Cont/ South, East Central Railway,
                  Dighaghat.
             3. C.A.O. Construction South Mahendru Ghat Patna.
             4. Cheif Engineer, Ganga Bridge, Mahendru Ghat, Patna.
                                                                 ..... Respondents.
                                        -----------

For the petitioner : Mr. Buxis S.R.P. Sinha, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Binod Kumar Yadav, Advocate.

For the respondents : Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, Advocate.

——–

02.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging order dated 15.03.2011 by which the Deputy Chief

Engineer (Con) G.B., E.C. Railway Dighaghat, Patna has directed

the different High Officials of all the Railways to recover

Rs.88,48,061.40 from the dues of the petitioner, if any, with them.

It is also stated that the aforesaid dues was claimed by the

respondents by way of risk and cost amount as per the failure of

the contractor in completing the work, namely linking of track,

points and crossing of other P. Way Work and supply of ballast

between Danapur, Phulwarisharif & Digha (New Line) in

connection with construction of Ganga Rail Bridge, Patna.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

matter is pending for arbitration before the Tribunal and without
-2-

giving any counter claim respondent no.3 has issued the impugned

order for recovery of the amount. Hence, he prays for permission

to withdraw this writ petition with permission to raise this issue

also before the arbitral Tribunal.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as

withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. However, petitioner must file

an application in the said arbitral proceeding on the next date

fixed, i.e.13.09.2011 along with a copy of this order raising the

dispute and the said Tribunal shall consider the entire matter and

take appropriate decision in accordance with law. If the petitioner

requires any interim order he will be at liberty to approach the

arbitral Tribunal for the said purpose which should be decided at

the earliest.

(S. N. Hussain, J.)
Sunil