APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) PETITIONER has moved this writ petition for the following reliefs: - (a) For the quashing of the order dated 19.03.2010 by which a decision on renewal of the registration of the M/s Jharkhand Construction Giridih has been granted by the respondent authorities. (b) To hold and declare that the order dated 19.03.2010 is illegal and arbitrary. (c) To hold and declare that the respondents have failed to consider that the M/s Jharkhand Construction is no longer in existence and the 5 partners of M/s Jharkhand Construction dissolved the partnership and converted into Jharkhand Developer Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the petitioner company by all the 5 partners becoming Directors of the Company and it was duly recognized by the Govt. of Jharkhand. From the averment made in the writ petition as well as affidavit of the parties and upon hearing of the counsel for the parties, it appears that the writ petitioner has moved before this Court to resolve the dispute, which is in the nature of civil dispute relating to the partnership firm in the year 2001 and then in the year 2007. On the other hand, it is not disputed that neither the petitioner nor private -respondent is prohibited to participate in any tender after fulfilling essential requirement of the concerned Department as well as other eligibility criteria laid down.
(3.) THE counsel for the respondent no. 5, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, has relied upon a Judgment in the case of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal(D) By Lrs. and Another Versus B.D. Agarwal and Others, reported in 2003 6 SCC 230, wherein also the private dispute was sought to be agitated by way of writ petition filed in public law remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasioned to observe in paragraph -28, which is as follows: 28. A writ petition is filed in public law remedy. The High Court while exercising a power of judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contradistinguished from a dispute involving public law character. It is also well settled that a writ remedy is not available for resolution of a property or a title dispute. Indisputably, a large number of private disputes between the parties and in particular the question as to whether any deed of transfer was effected in favour of M/s Writers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd. as also whether a partition or a family settlement was arrived at or not, were pending adjudication before the civil courts of competent jurisdiction. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition primarily revolved around the order of authentication of the declaration made by one of the respondents in terms of the provisions of the said Act. The writ petition, in the factual matrix involved in the matter, could have been held to be maintainable only for that purpose and no other.;