Home / Supreme Court / Judgments / 2024 / Diary 10064

MAA BHAGWATI CONSTRUCTION v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Supreme Court of India | Diary 10064/2024

Status

ROP - of Main Case

Decided On

18-03-2024

Bench

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Petitioner

MAA BHAGWATI CONSTRUCTION

Respondent

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Primary Holding

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not warranted where disputed questions of fact arise, and a petitioner must instead pursue alternate civil remedies available in law.

Download PDF Check another SC case

Full Judgment Text

SLPC 6110/2024 ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.1 SECTION IV-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.6110/2024 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-02-2024 in WPC No. 4967/2023 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur) MAA BHAGWATI CONSTRUCTION Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. Respondent(s) (With I.R. and IA No.62257/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.62258/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 18-03-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR Mr. Anand Dadariya, Adv. Mr. Nimit Bhimjiyani, Adv. Ms. Sneha Balapure, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 The petitioner instituted writ proceedings before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, aggrieved by a communication dated 7 October 2023 Page 1 of 2

SLPC 6110/2024 terminating a contract for the construction of a jail building at Bilaspur. The termination was on the ground that the petitioner lacked the requisite experience in terms of the tender requirements. 2 Having considered the judgment of the High Court, we are of the considered view that the ultimate conclusion to reject the petition can be sustained on the ground that recourse to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was not warranted since disputed questions of fact arise. At the same time, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to leave open all the rights and remedies of the petitioner, in which event, the observations of the High Court in the impugned order will not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing such remedies as are available in law. 3 Subject to the above clarification, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of. 4 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar Page 2 of 2

Search This Case

Supreme Court Resources

High Court Case Status

Check case status for High Courts across India