Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1723 (ALL)

B. R. Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-05-27

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. The petitioner had carried out certain R.C.C. Lining work for the Irrigation Department in pursuance of tenders allotted to the petitioner in 2011-12. According to the petitioner, the payment has not been made and hence, a mandamus is sought for the payment of a total amount of Rs.19,47,569/- together with interest. 2. At the outset, we may indicate that we are not inclined to issue a direction in regard to the payment of outstanding dues as claimed by the contractor in a purely contractual matter. In this regard, we may advert to the judgement of this Court in M/s R.S. Associate Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ-C No. 11544 of 2014) in which the following observations were made: "These are purely contractual matters and we are not inclined to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this regard. Whether the work under the contract has been satisfactorily carried out; whether the rates quoted are in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the applicable schedule of rates; whether the work has been carried out properly are issues which have to be addressed, among other questions, by the competent authority before an appropriate decision is taken. The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot appropriately be exercised in such matters. The remedy of the contractor, if he is aggrieved by non payment, would be to either file an ordinary civil suit or if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, to invoke the terms of the agreement. ....It is true that there is no absolute bar in entertaining a petition in a contractual matter. However, in cases such as the present, several issues on facts which have been noted in the earlier part of this judgement have to be determined by the competent authority. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is not warranted for what the petitioner seeks in essence is a decree in a civil suit which cannot be granted in this proceeding, particularly having regard to the nature of the issues involved. The Court, therefore, declines to entertain this petition." 3. Hence, the petitioners would have to take recourse to the remedy of a civil suit for the recovery of dues. The Court, therefore, declines to entertain this petition." 3. Hence, the petitioners would have to take recourse to the remedy of a civil suit for the recovery of dues. A money decree of the nature sought cannot be passed in the writ jurisdiction for the payment of contractual dues, having due regard to what is observed in the above judgement. 4. The petitioners have filed an amendment application. It has been stated that an inquiry has been constituted by the State Government and because of the pendency of the inquiry the payment has not been made. A prayer is sought to be added that the State Government may be directed to conclude the enquiry pending against the petitioner. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application, the amendment application is allowed. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also confined his submission at the hearing to the effect that since an inquiry is pending before the State Government, that inquiry may be concluded expeditiously. We, accordingly, dispose of the petition only with a direction that the pending inquiry may be concluded expeditiously insofar as the petitioners are concerned and preferably within a period of three months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioners are at liberty to file a suit for the recovery of their dues. 6. Save and except the aforesaid, no further relief is granted. The petition is disposed of in those terms. There shall be no order as to costs.