Madhya Pradesh High Court
Multiurban Infra Service Private ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 July, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 27 th OF JULY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 8678 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MULTIURBAN INFRA SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED MR.
AMIT KUMAR SAXENA S/O SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
SAXENA OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT GENERAL
MANAGER SARVODAY CLOTH MARKET,
GANDHINAGAR, NAGPUR (MH) (MAHARASHTRA)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SHEKHAR SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA,
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN
ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT,
M AN TR ALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UJJAIN , THROUGH
ITS COMMISSIONER, UJJAIN DISTT. UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
UJJAIN, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI ANIKET NAIK, LEARNED DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI PRATEEK PATWARDHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-4].)
This petition coming on for admission. this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 7/31/2023
5:25:08 PM
2
ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
ORDER
T h e present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the
respondents to release the undisputed admitted balance payment of the final bill
amounting to Rs.9,81,442/- as admitted in the letter dated 15.07.2021(Annexure-
P/4) alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the due date of payment till the
date.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a Private Limited
Company dealing in infrastructure development works. The petitioner company
had registered itself with the Public Works Department of Madhya Pradesh and
executed various works like the reservoir, dams, buildings, roads etc.
3 . The respondent No.3 has invited a tender for designing construction
of 9 Lakh LItres, RCC Sump Well pump house and providing laying, jointing
and testing of 300 mm dia DI pumping main including crossing of railway track
at Dussehra Maidan to Undasa WTP Ujjain. The cost of the work was
Rs.4,55,17,500/- and the stipulated period for completion of work was 12
months to be reckoned from the date 26.02.2014.
4. The petitioner participated in the bidding process and was declared a
successful bidder, accordingly, a contract agreement was executed between the
petitioner and the respondent No.3. The work order was also issued in favour
of the petitioner on 26.02.2014. A completion certificate was also issued to the
petitioner on 22.06.2015.
5. After receiving the completion certificate on 22.06.2015, the petitioner
has written a letter to the respondent no.3 in which he has drawn attention to his
emails dated 13.04.2020, 25.06.2020, 06.07.2021, 10.08.2021 and 20.09.2021 in
which it has been stated that the Chief Engineer, Urban Administration and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 7/31/2023
5:25:08 PM
Development, Bhopal vide letter dated 23.07.2021 ha directed the respondent
no.2 to take steps to release the undisputed admitted payment. Further, the
Executive Engineer vide its letter dated 15.07.20221 has stated that because of
non-availability of fund in the head of Karya Senhast-2016, the said amount has
not been released.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled
for an interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of delay caused by the
respondents. In support of his contention, he has referred to the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Surya Constructions vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors., (2019) 16 SCC 794 wherein, under similar facts and
circumstances, interest at the rate of 6% p.a. has been awarded. The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced below :
"Leave granted. Having heard the learned counsel for all the
parties, we find that the present is a case in which payment
for extra work by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam has not been
made though such work was expressly sanctioned and done
to their satisfaction. The appellant before us has had to run
from pillar to post to get the money owed to them.
2 . By an order dated 21.10.2013, the High Court asked the
appellant to make a representation and finally, in a contempt
petition moved o n 07.02.2014, directed Uttar Pradesh Jal
Nigam to answer this representation. The representation so
made was answered by Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam as follows:
"Due to aforesaid facts and descriptions it is clear that Rs.
113.29 lakhs has to be released by Government/Mela
Administration against the Budget presented by U.P.Jal
Nigam, Magh Mela 2008 of 2009. There is no money
available under account of Magh Mela
Administration/Government. Therefore, payment regarding
M/s Surya Construction, 323/3, Alopibagh, Allahbad will be
paid after availability of the money from the Government."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 7/31/2023
5:25:08 PM
3 . It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated
22.03.2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to
be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant
knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being
Writ Civil No. 25216 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated
02.05.2014 dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed
questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a
contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect
inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the
contrary, the amount payment to the appellant is wholly
undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State
behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High
court could not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India (ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee
Corpn. of India Ltd.).
4 . This being the case and the work having been completed
longback in 2009, we direct Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make
the necessary payment within a period of four weeks from
today. Given the long period delay, interest @ 6% p.a. may
also be awarded....."
7 . Taking into consideration the fact that project has already been
completed and the admitted amount is due, therefore, the respondents are
directed to make the payment of the outstanding admitted amount of
Rs.9,81,442/- (Rs.Nine Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Four Hundred and Forty
Two only) to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the order. The State Government is equally liable to
pay the amount since it is the Principal Authority to get the project implemented
through the concerned respondent. Admittedly, in the present case there is a lot
of delay in payment of admitted amount, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the light of the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surya Constructions (Supra), we are of
the opinion that petitioner is also entitled for an interest @ 6% per annum on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 7/31/2023
5:25:08 PM
admitted amount from the date when it actually felt due till the date of payment.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of
finally.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 7/31/2023
5:25:08 PM
