CWP No. 16060 of 2008 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 16060 of 2008
Date of Decision: 10.9.2008
The Kartarpur Cooperative Labour & Construction Society Ltd.
......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Shri Hemant Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The petitioner, a Cooperative Labour Society, has
approached this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the
respondents to release the payment due to the petitioner on account of
work performed by the petitioner in pursuance of a contract executed in
the month of April, 2007.
It is pointed out that the petitioner has served a notice dated
25.8.2008 on the respondents, but the same has not been replied to by
the respondents. It is alleged that the respondents are under legal duty
to reply the said notice in terms of Section 80 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
The petitioner has issued the legal notice on 25.8.2008,
whereas the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on
8.9.2008 i.e. within three weeks thereafter. Apart from the said fact, we
find that the claim of the petitioner, is purely a simple money claim, for
which the remedy of the petitioner lies before the Civil Court.
CWP No. 16060 of 2008 (2)
The reliance of the petitioner on the orders passed on
17.3.2008 (in Civil Writ Petition No. 4072 of 2008) and 24.9.2004 (in
Civil Writ Petition No. 15007 of 2004) is not tenable as the said orders
are not a precedent which binds this Court. Vide the aforesaid orders,
directions were issued to the respondents to decide the legal notice.
Once, the petitioner has raised a money claim for which the petitioner
has an efficacious alternative remedy, we do not find that any case for
interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is made out.
Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
`
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
10-9-2008
ds