Uttarakhand High Court
Navi Ahmad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 659 of 2022
Navi Ahmad ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ... Respondents
And
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 660 of 2022
M/s Khan Enterprises A proprietorship
firm through its sole proprietor ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ... Respondents
And
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 668 of 2022
Rajesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ... Respondents
Advocates : Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Addl. CSC, for the State
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent/Nagar Nigam
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
These are three matters, which engage consideration
almost a common question of facts and law. Invariably, in all
the three writ petitions, a certain work contract was alleged to
be assigned to the petitioner for the work, which was alleged
to have been executed by the petitioners as back as in 2016-
17, for laying down of the CC tiles and various other works,
which formed to be part and parcel of the terms of the
contract/work order.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
certain amount falls due to be paid to the petitioner, under the
terms of the contract, as a consequence of completion of the
work, and the same has not been remitted and hence he had
filed the representation, before the respondents on
05.02.2022 and 16.02.2022, raising his claim for the payment
of the amount on which, a three member committee was
directed to be constituted by the respondents and based on it,
a conclusion has been arrived at, as a consequence of which,
the impugned order dated 04.02.2022 has been passed by
respondent No. 4, whereby the payment of the amount due
under the terms of the contract, for the year 2016-2017, has
been placed under suspension.
3. This order of suspension dated 04.03.2022, has been
inferred by the petitioner; as if it was a refusal made by the
Executive Officer to pay the amount allegedly due to be paid
to the petitioner under the terms of the contract. But,
however, in the work order, which has been issued in favour
of the petitioner under the terms of which, the petitioner has
performed the work and under the terms of which he claims,
that he would be entitled for the remittance of the amount in
itself contained in clause (15), with an arbitration clause.
4. In that eventuality, once a party to an agreement is a
signatory to the terms of it and has derived a benefit of
executing the work, he will be equally bound by the
consented forum, chosen by him for the redressal of his
grievances, if any dispute arises under and from the terms of
the contract, which would be inclusive of the dispute of the
payment of amount for the alleged work done.
5. In that eventuality, all these writ petitions are hereby
dismissed with liberty left open to the petitioner to invoke
clause-15 (similar other clauses in the different other work
orders) of the work order, by invoking an arbitration clause
and if he does so within a period of three weeks from the date
of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, the
Arbitrator would decide the arbitration proceedings
independently without he being influenced by any
observations or findings recorded by the three member
committee report, as well as, in the impugned order itself.
6. It goes without saying that the Arbitrator will resort to
the procedure contemplated under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
7. Let a copy of this judgment be kept in the order sheets
of the connected writ petitions.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
04.04.2022
Mahinder/
