Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1438 (ALL)

Lal Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2010-04-30

PRADEEP KANT, SHABIHUL HASNAIN

body2010
ORDER : Pradeep Kant, Shabihul Hasnain, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Taking cognizance of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the State that the claim for payment against the work done in terms of a contract granted by the State Government or any of its Department including Public Works Department, can not be claimed by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, we have proceeded to decide the writ petition finally with the consent of the parties counsel at the admission stage. 3. It is no gain saying that in a matter of contractual obligation or in case the parties are bound by some agreement/contract for raising such a dispute before a special forum may be arbitration or Civil Court, normally this Court under the discretionary jurisdiction would not entertain the writ petition even though the action of the party complained, is the State government or any instrumentality of the State or a statutory body. 4. The exercise of writ jurisdiction depends upon various other factors as the rule of alternate remedy is a self imposed restraint upon the High Court. In case there is a dispute that the work was never allotted to the party claiming payment or that the work done by the party was not according to the norms or to the satisfaction of the State Government or the authority concerned, or that there is dispute regarding the payment which is to be made for the work done, or any other dispute including violation of administrative or executive directions or any dispute which does not admit the liability of payment either in whole or in part or any other dispute etc. an if a party comes to the High Court with such a dispute, the court would be loath to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing direction to the authority concerned for payment for the work done. an if a party comes to the High Court with such a dispute, the court would be loath to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing direction to the authority concerned for payment for the work done. But in case the work as per the terms and conditions laid down by the State government or the department of the State Government has been performed and completed by the Contractor as per norms and prescription laid there for, and this fact is admitted by the State Government or the competent authority, of the department who is to sanction the payment and if any amount is also admitted to the State Government or the concerned authority of the department who is to grant such sanction/approval, for making the payment, we do not find any reason as to why such a person or a party be relegated to the long and time consuming remedy of filing civil suit or pursing arbitration proceedings. 5. The amount as against the work done to the satisfaction of the State government or the concerned authority of the department who is responsible for the payment and grant of such approval/sanction if is admitted to him and of course if there is no dispute with regard to the entitlement of such payment, it is expected that the State Government shall make the payment of the said amount. In all fairness and reasonableness it will not be appropriate for the State or the Instrumentality of the State or a statutory body, to avoid payment, of the admitted amount and require the party/aggrieved person, to pursue the conventional and cumbersome alternative remedy. 6. In the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and others v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others reported in 2003 (1) EER 389, the Apex Court while dealing with the matter of suspension of retail outlet license, wherein the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy of Arbitration under the contract itself, reiterating the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 as laid down in the case of Whirl Pool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 11, set aside the orders passed by the High Court and allowed the appeal of the licensee against the Oil Corporation. 7. 7. We, therefore, while declining to entertain the petition as we are informed that the relevant documents has not been bought on record to indicate as to whether any amount is admittedly due for the payment by the State government or the concerned department, dispose of the writ petition finally in terms of the order dated 21.9.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 6017 (M/B) of 2005; M/s. Satish Chandra v. State of U.P. and others. However, this would not mean that any other amount regarding which there is any dispute or the same is not admitted to the State Government or to the concerned authority of the department responsible for sanction or payment to the petitioner, would also be paid for which amount the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the dispute claiming the amount, by following the due procedure before appropriate forum as may be admissible to him in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid direction the petition is disposed of finally.