Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: A Division Bench of Abhijit Gangopadhyay and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against order dismissing a petition seeking direction upon the Municipal Council for payment of a money claim.

A contract was executed between the appellant and respondent herein, under which some materials were supplied to the respondent Municipal Council by the appellant. However, since the respondent failed to make a payment for the same, a writ petition was filed by the appellant herein in this Court. Learned Single Judge declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction for payment of a money claim. Aggrieved by the said decision, the instant appeal was filed.

Learned counsel Babita Das, on behalf of the appellant submitted that materials had been supplied to the respondent and it accepted the same without demur. However, bills raised upon it in that regard remained unpaid. Even the representation made by the appellant to respondent-municipal council was not answered. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Arul Prasanth submitted that the claim was disputed.

The Court observed that gist of the grievance of the appellant related to non-payment of a money claim arising out of the contractual obligation. Public remedy by way of invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction necessitated a public element in contractual matters. It was opined that the said public element was absent in the present case, which related to non-payment of bills raised in connection with supplies allegedly made to the respondent-Municipal Council.

In view of the above, it was held that dispute did not call for a public law remedy and thus there was no infirmity in the impugned order. Thus, the appeal was dismissed granting liberty to the appellant to seek an appropriate remedy before the civil forum in accordance with law.[Sri Krishna Traders v. Port Blair Municipal Council, MA No. 020 of 2019, decided on 10-06-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. dismissed a petition praying for the arrest of a few persons named in a first information report.

Petitioner herein had lodged a police case against Respondent’s 6 to 9 for offence under Sections 304-B, 34 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860. Since the said respondents had not been arrested so far, the instant petition was filed praying for a direction to the State to arrest them.

The Court observed that there may be a case in which innocent persons may be implicated in the criminal case. The police in course of an investigation may not like to arrest such person. On completion of investigation, the police may submit a report that those persons named in the FIR are innocent. There may be a case where even informant may turn into the category of accused in the same police case. In such cases also, it would be highly unfair to arrest a person, who may be innocent and whose name is maliciously be given by the informant in the FIR.

It was opined that only because a person is named in the first information report, the Court would not issue any direction for the arrest of those persons. Since the instant police case was under investigation; to arrest or to not arrest an accused named in the FIR was within the exclusive domain of police. In view thereof, it was held that it would be highly unsafe for a Court to issue direction, while exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction, to the respondent authorities to arrest a person named in the FIR.[Govinda Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 248, Order dated 25-02-2019]