Allahabad High Court
Adarsh Bhartiy Shishu Mandir ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others on 13 November, 2013
Bench: Uma Nath Singh, Ran Vijai Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17952 of 2012
Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhartiy Shishu Mandir (Shiksha Samit)
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sriprakash Dwivedi,Anand Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.
Order (Oral)
We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition and the contents of other documents available on record.
This writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus apart from seeking usual relief(s) in the nature of any other writ, order or direction which this Court would deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
Vide paragraph 8 of the writ petition, there is a clear assertion that for the work done by the petitioner the bills to the tune of Rs.98,000/- were approved by the District Programme Officer on 30.03.2012. In reply thereto, the averments made in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit would read as:-
"That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.8 of the writ petition, it is stated that the alleged bill of Rs.98000/- in favour of the petitioner has been scrutinized, due to lack of information regarding postponing of the aforesaid Training work by aforesaid letter, under the Kishori Shakti Yojana."
Thus, there is no denial of the assertion in paragraph no.8 of the petition regarding the acceptance/approval of bills of Rs.98000/-. However, in the same breath, in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, the deponent has stated that the entire work done by the petitioner is under doubt. (emphasis supplied)
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this background, submitted that the amount of bills is admitted and vide paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, it seems that due to dearth of sufficient budget, the same could not be cleared.
Learned State Counsel does not dispute that the deponent Officer has taken a contradictory stand which is also contrary to the order passed by a coordinate Division Bench on 06.09.2012 on the admission made by learned State Counsel. The said order is also reproduced as:
"For certain work carried out by the petitioner-Institution in the Office of the District Programme Officer, Mirzapur, the respondents have not made payment to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a sum of Rs. 49,000/- is due for the training of first batch and Rs. 49,000/- for training the second batch as would be clear from annexure 3 to the writ petition, whereby the District Programme Officer has acknowledged that the said amounts are to be paid to the petitioner. It is thus admitted by the respondents that a sum of Rs. 98,000/- is to be paid to the petitioner.
Time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. He has stated that on having received the instructions from the Office of respondent no. 5, it is admitted that sum of Rs. 98,000/- is due to be paid to the petitioner, but because of non-availability of funds, the same has not paid.
Once the Government Agency gets the work done by a party, it is obliged to pay the amounts due and by not doing so, the respondents have put the petitioner in unnecessary hardship.
Considering the facts of the case, we direct that the respondents shall ensure that the payment of Rs. 98,000/- is made to the petitioner by the next date or to show cause by filing counter affidavit.
List on 29.10.2012."
From the rival submissions, the issues that we need to consider are: (i) as to whether prayer for issuance of mandamus to make the payment of the bills said to be admitted by the respondents can be issued? and (ii) as to whether the contradictory stand taken by the deponent Officer namely Smt. Prem Lata Gupta, District Programme Officer, Mirzapur, is required to be noticed? The deponent Officer addressed a letter dated 20.06.2012 to Additional Director (Finance), Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The contents of the letter though being in Hindi are relevant, and therefore, are given below:
izs"kd]
ftyk dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh
fetZkiqjA
lsok esa]
vij funs'kd (foRr)
cky fodkl lsok ,oa iq"Vkgkj
m0 iz0 y[kumA
i=kad [email protected]/[email protected]@ys[[email protected]&[email protected] fnukad 20&6&12
fo"k; %& fd'kksjh 'kfDr ;kstukUrxZr foRrh; o"kZ 2012&13 esa :0 98000-00 ds /kukcaVu ds lEcU/k esaA
egksn;]
d`i;k funs'kky; i=kad [email protected]@vuq0&[email protected]&10 fnukad 25 Qjojh 2010 dk lknj lUnHkZ ysus dk d"V djsaA mDr ds }kjk fd'kksjh 'kfDr ;kstuk ds vUrxZr 60 fnolh; izf'k{k.k djkus gsrq dk;Z dk vkcaVu fd;k x;k FkkA
mDr ds vuqikyu esa lEcfU/kr laLFkkvksa dks vkcafVr ifj;kstuk ds vuqlkj izf'k{k.k dk;Z djk;s tkus gsrq bl dk;Zky; }kjk funsZf'kr fd;k x;k FkkA foRrh; o"kZ 2009&10 esa vkcafVr laLFkkvksa ls izf'k{k.k dk;Z u djk;s tkus dk funsZ'k funs'kky; }kjk fn;k x;k FkkA
vkn'kZ Hkkjrh; f'k'kq f'k{kk lfefr Hknksgh }kjk lh[kM ifj;kstuk esa bl dk;Zky; ds i=kad la[;k lh0 1549 fnukad 06&3&2010 }kjk izf'k{k.k dk;Z dk vkns'k fn;k x;k FkkA rRlEcfU/kr chtd cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk izf'k{k.kksijkUr chtd 30&3&2013 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ftldk Hkqxrku foRrh; o"kZ 2010&11 esa ugha fd;k tk ldkA
mDr Hkqxrku fd;s tkus gsrq lEcfU/kr laLFkk }kjk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk la[;k [email protected] izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa izfr'kiFk i= ek0 mPPk U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa nkf[ky fd;k tkuk gSA
vr% vki ls vuqjks/k gS fd fd'kksjh 'kfDr ;kstuk en esa :0 98000-00 dk vkcaVu foRrh; o"kZ 2012&13 esa vkcaVu djus dk d`ik djsa ftlls lEcfU/kr laLFkk dks Hkqxrku dh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsA
Hkonh;
[email protected]& 20&6&2012
(izseyrk xqIrk)
ftyk dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh
fetZkiqj
In terms of the aforesaid letter, the State Counsel appearing before the coordinate Division Bench which passed the order dated 06.09.2012 made the statement as noticed in the order of coordinate Bench. The said officer being the deponent of counter affidavit has also not denied the assertion made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition in her reply vide para 9 thereof. However, contrary to all the aforesaid, she has retracted from the stand and made the contradictory statement in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit that the entire training work done by the petitioner is under doubt.
In the premises discussed herein above, we find that the bills of the petitioner have been admitted by the District Programme Officer, therefore, it is entitled to be paid the amounts mentioned therein.
Thus, the petition is allowed and we issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to make the payment, as prayed for, within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 13.11.2013
A. Katiyar
