Allahabad High Court
M/S Vaibhav Construction And ... vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16158 of 2022
Petitioner :- M/S Vaibhav Construction And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent No.4, District Magistrate, Ghazipur to pay the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of petitioners.
The case of the petitioners as unfolded from the perusal of the writ petition is that petitioner No.1 is proprietor of the firm known as M/S Vaibhav Construction, Sri Ram Colony, Rajdepur, Dehati, Rauja, District Ghazipur. The petitioners had undertaken the work of whitewashing the building of Collectorate Ghazipur in the year 2014-2015. Dinesh Singh Yadav, Najir Sadar, Collectorate, Ghazipur has sent a letter to respondent No.4 for taking permission for work of whitewashing and reparing the building of Collectorate Ghazipur on 10.12.2014. The work was completed by the petitioners after taking loan and they had submitted a bill to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- to the respondents but the payment could not be made by the respondents. Petitioner No.2 moved an application before the Chief Minister of U.P., Lucknow on 8.10.2015 for a direction to pay the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to petitioners. The then Najir Sadar had submitted the report on 18.10.2016, stating therein that the work of the building of Collectorate has been completed by the petitioners in the year 2014-2015. Respondent No.4 had sent a letter to C.R.O. and directed him to enquire the matter of the work completed by the petitioners. Upper Ziladhikari (Finance and Revenue) had sent a letter to the respondent No.6 on 3.5.2018 stating that the approval order for the work completed by the petitioner No.1 was not on record. The petitioner No.1 moved an application before the respondent No.4 on 29.5.2018 for releasing payment in favour of the petitioners. Respondent No.4 directed Incharge Officer, Najarat, Ghazipur to enquire the matter of the petitioners. The respondent No.2 had sent a letter to the respondent No.4 on 1.11.2021, and after audit, the respondents made payment of only Rs.5,22,502/-. The said letter is annexed as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition.
The petitioner No.2 moved various letters before the respondent No.4 for releasing his amount after completion of audit but the respondents have not paid the amount to the petitioners till date and the petitioners are running from pillar to post for releasing the amount their favour.
From the perusal of Annexure No.10 to the writ petition, it appears that the respondent No.2- Additional Land Management Commissioner (Lekha), Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow has informed the clearance of amount to the tune of Rs.5,22,502/- and sent the bills for withdrawal and disbursement. Therefore, a substantial amount of Rs.5,22,502/- has been admitted at the end of respondents.
A Division Bench of this Court in Writ C No. 8104 of 2020 ( M/S Friscon Media Works vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Other) while placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in case of Kerala State Electricity Board and Another vs Kurien E. Kalathil and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 293 has held that where the writ of mandamus sought by petitioners is nothing but a suit for recovery of money, in extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226, it ought not to have been granted.
Order 37 Code of Civil Procedure provides for summary procedure and this provision has been made keeping in view certain suits, in order to prevent the unreasonable obstructions laid down by the defendants. Unlike the other civil suits, the trial in summary suits begins after the court grants leave to the defendant to contest the suit. Summary suits are mainly filed for recovery of money and in this case also the recovery of money is involved. Therefore, the prayer made in the present writ petition is not liable to be granted where relief by way of filing summary suit is available to the petitioners.
The present petition stands disposed off in the light of forgoing discussion with observation that the petitioners are at liberty to file summary suit under provisions of Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure or civil suit as the case may be, before the competent Court.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022
Kamarjahan
