Allahabad High Court
Arvind Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 20 January, 2021
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis, Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 40 of 2021
Petitioner :- Arvind Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent nos.1 to 3.
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no.4 to pay the balance amount in respect of bid of Village Jagatipur Nala evam Jal Nikasi construction work bearing Work Sl. No.372, Block Sevapuri, District Varanasi within stipulated period."
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite completion of the work allotted by the concerned Zila Panchayat and inspite of finding the work done to be satisfactory by respondent no.4, no payment has been made to the petitioner till date.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 submits that petitioner's claim shall be decided only after the decision by the State Government with regard to fixing liability of payment of GST after being satisfied with the nature of work carried out.
In our view, allowing the relief, which is sought in these proceedings, would virtually amount to a money decree. The petitioner would have to pursue the ordinary civil remedy for the recovery of his dues or, if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, to invoke the terms of the agreement.
In a similar case, M/s R.S. Associate v. State of U.P. and others, (Writ-C No. 11544 of 2014, decided on 24 February 2014), this Court has, in its judgment dated 24.2.2014, declined to entertain a prayer for similar reliefs with the following observations:
"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 judgment 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."
Following the earlier view of the Division Bench and for the reasons indicated above, we decline to entertain the petition and relegate the petitioner to pursue the ordinary civil remedy or, if there is an arbitration agreement, to invoke the terms of the agreement.
The petition is, accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.1.2021
Manish Himwan
