SANTOSH KUMAR CHOUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed under the title of Public Interest Litigation, seeking relief against only respondent no.4, Tata Metaliks Kubota Pipes Limited, and M/s. Daroga Pradhan, was impleaded as party respondent because of the order dated 13th July, 2011, passed by this Court when this Court found that the work contract, in fact, was awarded to M/s. Daroga Pradhan by the State of Jharkhand through its department. Present writ petition has been filed with respect to one contract given by th State of Jharkhand to respondent no.6, M/s.Daroga Pradhan, for laying down pipeline to the length of 20.27 kms only in one water scheme. The writ petitioner's contention is that 8 km pipelines might have been laid down with standard material of pipeline, i.e. ISI mark pipeline which mark is issued by the Bureau Of Indian Standards. However, according to the writ petitioner, as per his view, 12 km of the said pipeline has not been laid down with the standard quality of pipe. It is also submitted that respondent no.4 was held guilty for misuse of BSI mark (ISI mark) and a number of documents have been placedon record by the writ petitioner. It appears from the pleadings of the writ petitioner that he has grievance only against manufacturer of the said pipes and has no grievance against M/s. Daroga Pradhan, who executed the work of laying down the pipe line under the contract granted to it. The relief claimed by the writ petitioner, being relevant, is reproduced below:-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for Bureau Of Indian Standards as well as other respondents have submitted that similar writ petitions have been filed against respondent no.4, Tata Metaliks Kubota Pipes Limited, one of which being Writ Petition (C) (PIL) No.14/2011, wherein same relief has been prayed by other persons with respect to another contract, obviously which has been given by the State of Sikkim. The allegation is the same that sub-standard pipes were used in similar project. The said writ petition No.14/2011 was disposed of by Sikkim High Court, vide order dated 18.3.2011. It is also submitted that there are writ petition, which has been dismissed by Delhi High Court recently in W.P (C) No.2306/2011 (MS.Narmada Vs. Union of India & Ors.),vide order dated 4.1.2012. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that there are two writ petitions before Calcutta High Court.