Allahabad High Court
Vipin Kumar Kanaujiya vs State Of Up Thru. Secy. Energy, ... on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8355 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Kanaujiya
Respondent :- State Of Up Thru. Secy. Energy, Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Ji Trivedi,Shraddha Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Sharma
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of K.S.Mani Electricals, Pondicherry vs. The Project Director, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project II, Chennai and Anr. passed on 12.02.2019 in W.P. No.33916 of 2018 and W.M.P. No.39376 of 2018 to say that even though the petitioner was not directly engaged by the opposite party no. 2, yet the opposite party no. 2 is responsible for making payment of work carried out by the petitioner on the direction of the private respondent nos. 3 & 4.
This Court has very carefully perused the judgment of Division Bench of Madras High Court which has only persuasive value for this Court.
This writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus to be issued to opposite party no. 2 i.e. Managing Director, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., U.P. Lucknow to disburse the dues payable to the petitioner on scrutinizing the amount of bills raised by the petitioner along with interest thereon forthwith.
The facts as pleaded in the writ petition are that a contract was executed between opposite party nos. 2 & 3 i.e. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and R.K. Chaddha Industries Ltd., Civil Lines, Bareilly respectively for certain electrical work. The said contract also contains a clause for engagement of a Utility Contractor i.e. the Sub-Contractor and in pursuance of such clause, the opposite party nos. 3 & 4 engaged the petitioner to conduct the electrical work. The petitioner completed the aforesaid work assigned to him through the work order issued by the opposite party no. 3 dated 15.09.2018, without any delay. The opposite party no. 2 has also verified the work on the spot and found it satisfactory. The petitioner being a sub-Contractor has submitted the bills before the authority concerned which have been duly verified. The opposite party no. 2 has released the money in favour of the opposite party no. 3 but the opposite party no. 3 has not made the payments to the petitioner.
It has been argued that the agreement between opposite party nos. 2 & 3 provided for engagement of Sub-Contractor and therefore the petitioner shall be deemed to have been engaged by opposite party no. 2 and it shall have the responsibility of making the payment of work carried out by the petitioner.
This Court has perused the pleadings and finds that in paragraph nos. 10 & 11, it has come out that the opposite party no. 2 has made all payments to the opposite party nos. 3 & 4. The opposite party nos. 3 & 4 have blocked the payment of the petitioner.
This Court finds that the petitioner has no privity of contract with the opposite party no. 2. He was engaged directly by the opposite party nos. 3 & 4. The payment having been made by opposite party no. 2 to the opposite party nos. 3 & 4, it becomes a private contractual dispute for which writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy. The petitioner may file a money suit before the competent civil court for recovery of his dues from opposite party nos. 3 & 4.
In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.1.2023
Nitesh
