MODERN FOUNDRY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (for short "the respondent company") to make payment settled by Dave Committee with commercial interest from the date the material was supplied. Further restoration of the petitioner's industry. It is further sought a relief that the petitioner be granted a sum of Rs.35.00 lacs (approx.) as compensatory costs on the basis of Rs.3.00 lacs per year from the date the industry stopped production and damages from the respondent No.2. It is also prayed that the State may be directed to enquire into the financial irregularities allegedly committed by the respondent No.4.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that at the instance of Shri P.N. Sharma, the then, Manager (Smelter) of BALCO, the respondent No.4 misused his office and caused loss to the petitioner firm to ensure the monopoly of Hindustan Foundry in business with the respondent Company. Further allegation was made that Shri A.K. Roy after his retirement was enjoying the position of Incharge officer at BALCO's plant. THE petitioner firm being ancillary of BALCO started the production of similar products those were being produced by M/s Hindustan Foundry. At the instance of Shri P.N. Sharma, the respondent No.4 used to reject the products of the petitioner firm being substandard. Several allegations are made against Shri P.N. Sharma.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in Godavari Sugar Mills Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others, relying on other decisions rendered by it earlier, held that "a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be entertained to enforce a civil liability arising out of a breach of a contract or a tort to pay an amount of money due to the claimants. THE aggrieved party will have to agitate the question in a civil suit. However, it was made clear that "in course of enforcement of statutory functions of the State or its Officers, the writ proceedings may be maintainable." In the case of hand, the respondent No.2 is neither a state or its agency.