AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Prusty, J.—When this matter is taken up, nobody appeared on behalf of the Petitioner to move this Writ Petition nor any mention has been made on behalf of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner for adjournment of the case.
I have gone through the contents of the Writ Petition.
The Petitioner, who is a Works Contractor, earlier working as such under Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 has filed this Writ Petition for quashing letter dated 04.12.1996 issued by Opposite Party No. 2 (Annexure 8), whereby the Petitioner was intimated that he has no outstanding dues pertaining to the work executed by him vide agreement Nc.21 F/2 of 19986-87 of erstwhile Project Division, Sambalpur and for a direction to the Opposite Party No. 2 to make payment of the Petitioner''s arrear arid settled dues as per Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition.
As it appears, earlier the Petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 10222 of 1996 and in compliance of Order Dtd 20/ 30.09.1996 all the papers relating to the claim of the Petitioner were scrutinized and it was found that the Petitioner has no outstanding dues against the Opposite Parties. The Petitioner was accordingly intimated vide letter dated 04.12.1996 and hence this Writ Petition. In the present Writ Petition vide Order Dated 24.11.1999, this Court directed issuance of notice, but till date requisites have not been filed for Issuance of notice on the Opposite Parties even though in the meantime ten years have passed from the date of the order.
Since the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition claiming certain monetary dues and an alternative remedy is available to him for realization of his outstanding dues from the Opposite Parties as per the provision of law, this Court cannot entertain the Writ Petition by exercising its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
In view of the above, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the "matter pending any further, since I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. Furthermore, since the Petitioner has not taken any steps for filing requisites even after a lapse of ten years, as it appears the Petitioner is no more interested to prosecute this case.
In view of the above, the Writ Petition merits no consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed.