Pradeep Kumar Singh vs State Of U P And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2105 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19419 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Muna Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is praying for issuing a mandamus directing the respondents to release the payment for the work done by the petitioner through contract basis for repairing the T.S. Bandh etc. for fury of the flood in the year 2016-17 within stipulated period.

At the very outset, Sri Gupta, learned Standing Counsel raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that this is a purely contractual dispute. The remedy of the contractor, if he is aggrieved by non-payment, would be an arbitration in terms of Clause 34 of the Condition of Contract which reads as, "As disputes in respect of this contract arising between Contractor and the Department will be put to the Superintending Engineer, D.C. Ballia and his decision shall be final and legally binding on both parties." As such, he submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in M/S Tiwari Construction vs. State of U.P. And Others (Writ C No. 6215 of 2011, dt. 15.4.2014).

Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that he is not inclined to press the writ petition. However, leave may be accorded to approach the authority concerned in terms of the Clause 34 of the Contract.

In the facts and circumstances, once the petitioner himself volunteers to approach the Arbitrator in terms of the Contract, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction that in case an appropriate application for arbitration is being preferred by the petitioner before the Arbitrator i.e. respondent no. 3, this Court hopes and trusts that he would proceed as per law.

Order Date :- 19.1.2023

A.K.Srivastava