RAGHUBANSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 8.1.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 29 of 2008 by which the writ petition was dismissed holding therein that the claim of the petitioner for payment of a sum of Rs.2,32,636/- on account of bills which he has raised for execution of the contract, which he claims, was executed in his favour as also the payment of adequate compensation for the alleged harassment caused to the petitioner, was rejected. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the claim of the petitioner was not admitted by the respondent and hence the same was disputed. The allegation of the respondent is also to the effect that the petitioner has not executed any work and has managed to create false documents of execution of work in connivance with the office clerk posted in the office of the respondent department. In view of these facts, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy, for redressal of his grievance.

(2.) HAVING heard the counsel for the parties in the light of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge so as to interfere with the same as the view taken by him is perfectly in consonance with the settled legal position regarding non- entertaining of a writ petition involving disputed question of fact, for which this appeal has been filed. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondents is claimed to be contractual in nature, which also is disputed. Under the circumstance, the writ petition has rightly not been entertained for adjudicating the dispute of a factual nature. The appeal, accordingly, is dismissed at the admission stage itself.