Madhya Pradesh High Court
Multiurban Infra Sevice Private ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Pranay Verma
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 29 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 4697 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MULTIURBAN INFRA SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH MR. AMIT KUMAR SAXENA OCCUPATION:
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, SARVODAY CLOTH
MARKET, GANDHINAGAR, NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SHEKHAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COM M ISSION ER , DIRECTORATE OF URBAN
ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT,
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. REGIONAL HEAD, HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,
PARYAWAS BHAWAN, JAIL ROAD, ARERA HILLS,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DHARAMPURI, THROUGH
ITS CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER, MUNICIPAL
COUNCIL DHARAMPURI, DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI DEEPAK SINGH SOLANKI, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
(SHRI TEHJEEB KHAN, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.4).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
11/30/2023 5:16:32 PM
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the
respondents to release the undisputed admitted amount arising out of the
contract as per the letter dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure P/6) along with interest @
12 % per annum.
2. The respondent No.4 under the Scheme of "Mukhyamantri Shahri
Payjal Yojna" had invited tender for the water supply scheme of Nagar Parishad
Dharampuri, Dhar. The cost of the work was Rs. 6,66,86,000/- and the
stipulated period for the completion of work was till 16.08.2017 to be reckoned
with effect from 16.05.2016. Petitioner participated in the bidding process and
was declared as successful bidder. Accordingly, a contract agreement was
executed between the petitioner and respondent No.4. A work order was also
issued in favour of the petitioner on 16.05.2016. The completion certificate was
also issued to the petitioner on 15.12.2017.
3. After receiving the completion certificate on 15.12.2017, the
petitioner in terms of the contract agreement had started operation and
maintenance work. The petitioner vide letter dated 10.06.2021 requested for
releasing the outstanding / undisputed payment for the work already executed.
The Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 30.09.2021 had recommended the
release of payment. The respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 21.10.2022
(Annexure P/6) has admitted the said payment of pending bills of Rs.
2,35,05,976/-. As per the condition of contract, the respondents have not
released the undisputed payment amounting to Rs. 2,35,05,976.18.
4 . 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% per annum 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
l a k h s 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."
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
t h e 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....."
5 . 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.
2,35,05,976/- (Two Crore Thirty Five Lakhs Five Thousand Nine Hundred
Seventy Six Only) to the petitioner within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The State Government is equally
liable to pay the amount since it is the Principal Authority to get the project
implemented through respondent No.4. 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
admitted amount from the date when it actually felt due till the date of payment.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of
finally.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
