Patna High Court
Krishna Kumar Jha vs The State Of Bihar on 23 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3954 of 2023
======================================================
1. Krishna Kumar Jha Son of Dayanath Jha, Resident of Village- Murliachak,
P.S.- Patauna (Bisfi), District- Madhubani, Bihar.
2. Dayanath Jha, Son of Late Haribansh Jha, Resident of Village- Murliachak,
P.S.- Patauna (Bisfi), District- Madhubani, Bihar.
3. Anand Kumar Jha, Son of Dayanath Jha, Resident of Village- Murliachak,
P.S.- Patauna (Bisfi), District- Madhubani, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Transport Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Registered Office- Pariwahan
Bhawan, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna- 800001.
4. The Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Registered
Office- Pariwahan Bhawan, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna.
5. The Regional Manager, Darbhanga Division, Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation, Laheriyasarai, Darbhanga.
6. The Chief Mechanical Engineer, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation,
Patna.
7. The Regional Transport Authority, Darbhanga through The Commissioner-
cum- Chairman.
8. The Commissioner-cum- Chairman, Regional Transport Authority,
Darbhanga.
9. The Joint Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,
Darbhanga.
10. The Additional Collector, Darbhanga-cum- Member, Regional Transport
Authority, Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Transport Corp. : Mr. Mukul Sinha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Kumar Samarjeet Singh, AC to SC-21
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH
SHARMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3954 of 2023 dt.23-03-2023
agreement entered between the respondent B.S.R.T.C. and the
petitioners. The petitioners have raised certain disputes with
regard to the action of the respondents in not providing permits
and time-table for the purpose of plying their buses for which
the agreement was entered between them and the respondents.
Such disputes, in terms of Clause 37, can be first raised before
the Secretary, Transport Department.
Learned counsel submits that the Secretary being
an interested party, may not be considered as an arbitrator.
The Apex Court, in case of M.P. Power
Managemenr Company Limited, Jabalpur Vs. Sky Power
Southest Solar India Private Limited & Ors, reported in
(2023) 2 SCC 703, has held as under:-
"82.7. The existence of an alternate
remedy, is, undoubtedly, a matter to be
borne in mind in declining relief in a writ
petition in a contractual matter. Again, the
question as to whether the writ petitioner
must be told off the gates, would depend
upon the nature of the claim and relief
sought by the petitioner, the questions,
which would have to be decided, and, most
importantly, whether there are disputed
questions of fact, resolution of which is
necessary, as an indispensable prelude to
the grant of the relief sought. Undoubtedly,
while there is no prohibition, in the writ
court even deciding disputed questions of
fact, particularly when the dispute
surrounds demystifying of documents only,
the Court may relegate the party to the
remedy by way of a civil suit.
82.8. the existence of a provision for
arbitration, which is a forum in tended to
quicken the pace of dispute resolution, is
Patna High Court CWJC No.3954 of 2023 dt.23-03-2023
viewed as a near bar to the entertainment of
a writ petition [see in this regard, the view
of this Court even in ABL 10 explaining how
it distinguished the decision of this Court in
State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (Indian)
Ltd.31, by its observations in SCC para 14 in
ABL10]."
Keeping in view the above, the petitioners are
always left free to raise a dispute before an independent
arbitrator by invoking the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
Granting liberty to avail the efficacious alternate
remedy as above, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J)
Gauravkr/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
