Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 265 (ALL)

ARVIND KUMAR PANDEY v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-02-11

KRISHNA MURARI, SHASHI KANT

body2015
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Rohit Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Prayer made in this petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the dues of the petitioner for contract bond alongwith up-to-date interest at the rate of 18% per annum within stipulated period. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a registered contractor and was allotted maintenance work of Magh Mela roads and bridges amounting to Rs. 14,51,463.50/-. It is further contended that on various representations made by the petitioner about the payment of outstanding dues, he was informed vide letter dated 3637/5A dated 30.10.2012 written by respondent No. 4 that due to paucity of funds, payment could not be made and as soon as the funds are made available, the outstanding bills shall be cleared. 4. Thereafter, when the payment was not made for sufficiently long time, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents, wherein it has been stated that the claim of the petitioner was scrutinised and vide order dated 22.2.2014 passed by the State Government, the District Magistrate, Allahabad was directed to release the amount due to the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, payment has been made through e-pay Order No. CD00257338 dated 24.2.2014. 6. In the light of the averments made in the counter-affidavit, learned Standing Counsel submitted that since the outstanding payment has been made to the petitioner, the cause of action does not survive any further. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondents have delayed the payment for no good reason, the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest on the delayed payment. The prayer is to award 18% interest. 8. Learned Standing Counsel relying upon the judgment dated 23.7.2014 passed on Writ Petition No. 37639 of 2014, judgment dated 11.3.2014 passed on Writ Petition No. 15127 of 2014 and judgment dated 2.5.2014 passed on Writ Petition No. 25126 of 2014, submitted that the writ petition seeking a direction to make payment of the bills submitted for the work performed under a contract, is not liable to be entertained. 9. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Chitra Gupta Trading v. U.P.P.W.D. and others, 2010(5) ADJ 299 (DB), urged that where the payment has been delayed for no rhyme or reason and there is no dispute about the bill or the quantum of payment, the writ petition is maintainable and direction should be issued for payment of interest for the delayed payment. 10. In the three cases relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel, since the liability was not admitted and there was dispute, hence, it was held that when the liability is disputed, writ petition is not liable to be entertained as the adjudication would require investigation into the questions of facts and evidence and, as such, the petitioners therein were relegated to either pursue the ordinary civil remedy or to invoke the arbitration clause, if there is any, in the agreement. 11. However, in the case is hand, there is no dispute about the bills or quantum of payment. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have not only admitted that the payment could not be made for want of sanction of funds, but as a matter of fact, have made the payment during the pendency of the writ petition. In view of these facts, the case law relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel are not attracted to the facts of the present case. 12. In the case of Chitra Gupta Trading (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that where there is no dispute about the bill/quantum of payment, the payment should be ensured to the petitioner by issuing an appropriate writ. The Division Bench has placed reliance upon earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 13.7.2009 passed on Writ Petition No. 14821 of 2008, Vijay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others. 13. The facts of the case in hand, are identical to that of Chitra Gupta Trading (supra). Since the payment of outstanding bill has already been made to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition, the sole question, which survives is to consider the grant of interest for the delayed payment. 13. The facts of the case in hand, are identical to that of Chitra Gupta Trading (supra). Since the payment of outstanding bill has already been made to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition, the sole question, which survives is to consider the grant of interest for the delayed payment. Since the respondents have admitted in the counter-affidavit that the only reason for non-payment was for want of sanction of funds, in our opinion, the same could not constitute any valid ground to withhold or delay in making the payment. 14. Thus, the respondents are under a liability to pay interest at the rate, which we quantify 12% per annum for the period, viz., from the date, payment became due till the date of actual payment. The payment of interest, as directed above, shall be made by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 15. The writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed to the extent directed above. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ——————