Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parkh Interprices Through Proprietor ... vs Upper Mukhya Sachiv on 5 April, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9209
1 WP-4704-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 5 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4704 of 2025
PARKH INTERPRICES THROUGH PROPRIETOR RADHESYAM
PORWAL
Versus
UPPER MUKHYA SACHIV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Umang Mitha - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anirudh Malpani - appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
'' अ. यथ गण के ारा दष पी/1 के पे आडर का पालन करने हे तु यायोिचत रट/आदे श/िनदश जार
करने क कृ पा करे ।
ब. यह क, माननीय यायालय ित थ गण को िनदश दया जाए क वह यािचकाकता को दनांक
08/02/2022 के प के अनुसार 2,01,47,617/- पये का मा णत भुगतान 6% ित वष याज स हत
यायोिचत रट/आदे श/िनदश जार करने क कृ पा करे ।
स. इस यािचका का सम त यय यािचकाकता को यथ से दलवाया जावे। ''
2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had
supplied laboratory equipment to the respondent No.1 in the year 2022 and
as is apparent from Annx.P/9, letter dated 20/10/2024, issued by the
Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service Division Agar Malwa, an
amount of Rs.25,54,288/- could not be paid to the petitioner as the payment
has not been received by the department. Counsel has also submitted that this
amount is in respect of certain deliveries only, whereas other two amounts
are also involved, thus, the total amount comes to Rs.47,00,830/-, although
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9209
2 WP-4704-2025
similar letters regarding which have not been furnished to the petitioner.
Thus, it is submitted that the amount may be directed to be paid to the
petitioner as the same is not disputed. Counsel has also relied upon the
decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Construction
Vs. The State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Appeal No.2610 of 2019
dated 08/03/2019.
3. Counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand has opposed
the prayer.
4. Heard. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the
documents on record as also the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in
the case of Surya Construction (supra), it is found that in the said case also,
the amount was held to be undisputed by the Supreme Court and the
following order was passed:-
"1. Leave granted.
2. Having heard 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. By an order dated
21.10.2013, the High Court asked the appellant to make a representation and finally, in a
contempt petition moved on 07.02.2014, directed the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to answer
this representation. The representation so made was answered by the Uttar Pradesh Jal
Nigam as follows:
"Due to aforesaid facts and description it is clear that Rs.113.29 lacs has to be
released by Government/Mela Administration against the Budget presented by U.P.
Jal Nigam, Magh Mela 2008-09. There is no money available under account of
Magh Mela 2008-09 of U.P. Jal Nigam. And could not obtained the rest of amount
from the Mela Administration/Government. Therefore, payment regarding M/s.
Surya Construction, 323/3, Alopibagh, Allahabad 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 the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No. 25126/2014,
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 payable 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9209
3 WP-4704-2025
Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ['ABL International
Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others' (2004
(3) SCC 553)].
4. This being the case and the work having been completed long back in 2009, we direct
the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the necessary payment within a period of four weeks
from today. Given the long period of delay, interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum
may also be awarded.
5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly."
5. In view of the same, taking note of the fact that according to the
petitioner, the amount is undisputed, which is also reflected in the letter dated
20/10/2024 issued by the respondent No.3, this Court is inclined to dispose
of this petition with a direction to the respondents to pay the aforesaid
amount and any other amount due, which is undisputed to the petitioner
within a further period of three months along with the applicable Bank
interest rate.
6. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
krjoshi
