Meraj Ahmad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 38794 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Meraj Ahmad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public ... on 25 November, 2024

Bench: Rajan Roy, Manish Kumar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78081-DB
 
Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9986 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Meraj Ahmad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Kumar Tripathi,Gyanendra Pathak
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
 

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ - C No. 9368 of 2023 challenging an order of blacklisting dated 14.07.2023. The said writ petition was disposed of on 19.10.2023 in the following terms:-

"Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned order dated 14.07.2023 whereby he has been black listed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits two fold submissions. First submission is that the impugned order is passed without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and the second one is that by the impugned order petitioner has been permanently blacklisted without prescribing any time limit.

Perusal of the impugned order itself shows that order is passed ex-parte to the petitioner without considering his reply and without prescribing any time limit, therefore order dated 14.07.2023 is set aside with liberty to the respondent no. 4 to pass afresh order in case he so desires, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law prescribing the time limit for blacklisting.

Writ petition is disposed of."

3. The aforesaid order was modified on 21.11.2023 in the following terms:-

"(I.A. No.2 of 2023-Modification)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an application for modification of the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by this Court.

3. The modification application is allowed and the following lines are added to the judgment and order dated 19.10.2023:

"It shall also be open for the petitioner to make a fresh representation for payment of his forfeited amount, which if made, shall be considered and decided by the authority concerned expeditiously in accordance with law."

4. In pursuance thereof the petitioner filed an application for payment of his forfeited amount which has been considered and an order has been passed on 15.05.2024. When, we peruse the said order we find that amount has been forfeited only with regard to the three agreements mentioned therein, whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that there were seven agreements and the other four agreements were carried out and the work in respect thereof was completed about which there is no dispute raised in the impugned order. However, as regards the three agreements referred in the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 reasons have been given therein for forfeiting the amount totaling Rs.137360/-.

5. We are of the view that this is a contractual matter, therefore, the petitioner should avail remedies either before the civil court or if there was an arbitration clause to invoke the same. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be the appropriate remedy.

6. As regards the other four agreements, there is no order of forfeiture in respect thereof before us, therefore, if there are dues payable to the petitioner he may raise a cause before the concerned authority or the Court concerned as per law.

7. We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition however with liberty aforesaid.

.

(Manish Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

Order Date :- 25.11.2024

R.K.P.