Allahabad High Court
M/S Lalji Chaurasia vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 January, 2021
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis, Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 115 of 2021
Petitioner :- M/S Lalji Chaurasia
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Chaurasia
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent nos.2 & 3.
The instant petition has been filed with the following relief:
(I) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.9.2020 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure No.9 to this writ petition);
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to release the money of petitioner's bill which is pending before him with interest;
(III) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to pay the entire consequential benefit to the petitioner which is entitled."
Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3 contends that there is an arbitration Clause 34 of the agreement and as such, the petitioner has any grievance with respect to payment of work done by him, he may approach the concerned authority ventilating all his grievances.
It appears from the record that the petitioner has already approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.35393 of 2019 to get the payment for the work done and the aforesaid petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before the Respondent No. 5, Chief Executive Officer, Noida ventilating his grievances within a period of two weeks along with a certified copy of the order enclosing therewith a copy of the writ petition and its annexures and, if any such representation is made, the said authority either itself or through some senior official shall make all endeavour to consider and decide the same by a speaking and reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation vide order dated 16.12.20219. The respondent no.2 has decided the said representation of the petitioner by order dated 21.9.2020. Now the petitioner again came up with the same relief at this stage.
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 invoke Clause 34 of the arbitration in terms of the agreement.
The petition is, accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.1.2021
M. Tariq
