H.C.MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Union of India.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ application with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding upon the respondents, in particular respondent Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and its Officials, who are respondent Nos.2 to 9, as also respondent Nos.14 to 18 and 20 to forthwith make the payment to the petitioner in terms of the agreement dated 25th September, 2008, executed between the respondent No.14 and the petitioner with regard to the collection and selling of gas, in particular Methane gas by the petitioner to the respondents which was being extracted by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India Ltd. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation, respondent No.19, to register the case and carry out the investigation against the officials of the ONGC and the private respondents for having exploited the natural resources in the State of Jharkhand.
(3.) IT is stated in the writ application that M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., entered into an agreement with M/s Calcutta Compression and Liquification Engineering Pvt. Ltd., for extraction and delivery of Methane Gas. According to the petitioner's case, M/s Calcutta Compression and Liquification Engineering Pvt. Ltd., in turn, entered into a contract with the petitioner, through his firm, viz., Singh Builders, for extraction of the gas and its delivery at the bottling site. The statements made in the writ application show that there is monetary dispute between the parties arising out of the said business contract. It appears from the record that criminal cases were also filed by the petitioner against the respondents, one of them being Complaint Case No.460 of 2009, filed against the respondent Nos.18 and 20, in which, it was alleged that there was a business contract between the petitioner and those respondents. For entering into the contract, the accused persons had asked the complainant, who is the petitioner herein, for making a deposit of Rs.50 Lakhs in the company of the accused persons, but at the request made by the complainant that he was not in a position to deposit Rs.50 Lakhs, the contract was entered into upon deposit of only Rs.12,50,000/ - by the complainant. Though there is allegation against those accused persons that the terms of the contract were not fulfilled, but in the complaint petition as against respondent No.18, who happened to be the C.E.O of the company, there is allegation to have snatched the gold chain and cash Rs.10,000/ - of the petitioner, which prima facie clearly shows that this allegation against the C.E.O of a company doing business in Methane Gas, is prima facie, unbelievable. Thereafter, the police case was also lodged by the petitioner against the private respondents again with almost the same allegations for non -fulfillment of the contract between the parties, which was registered as Sector -IV P.S. Case No.87 of 2010. The complaint petition and the FIR have been brought on record as Annexure -7 series, which clearly show that even though, in the complaint petition, it was stated that the deposit of Rs.12,50,000/ - was made at the request of the petitioner, but in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the petitioner was forced to make the payment of Rs.12,50,000/ - by the accused persons. It is alleged in both these criminal cases that the petitioner had also been falsely implicated in the criminal case by the respondents, but that criminal case has not been brought on record.;