Madan Singh Rana vs Union Of India And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1795 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Madan Singh Rana vs Union Of India And Others on 11 March, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures



                                  WPMS No.44 of 2026
                                  Madan Singh Rana                                          ............Petitioner
                                                              Vs.
                                  Union of India and others                                ..........Respondents

                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. B.N. Molakhi and Ms. Priya Mewari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned C.G.S.C. for the Union of India.

3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has sought a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent- Authorities to release the bill amounting to ₹2,86,62,870/- to the petitioner for the work done by him pursuant to the Tender No.1869-93 dated 28.02.2020 for the year 2020-21 for supply of ration kerosene oil and other miscellaneous store to the respondent nos.5 i.e., VIIth Battalion, I.T.B.P. Mirthi, Pithoragrah and further to release the bill of the petitioner relating to the aforesaid contract for the year 2020-21 by freezing the amount as alleged to be wrong/misrepresented in the inquiry report conducted by the respondent no.5.

4. In order to consider the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount is an admitted claim to the respondent-Department, a counter affidavit was called from the respondent-Union of India.

5. Supplementary counter affidavit is filed by the respondent.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that along with the supplementary counter affidavit an inquiry report has also been annexed.

7. On the strength of inquiry report, it is disputed by the learned C.G.S.C. for the Union of India that the amount claimed by the petitioner is undisputed.

8. He further submits that though the inquiry report is submitted and the matter is still under investigation therefore the amount cannot be released in favour of the petitioner at this stage.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposed this submission made by learned C.G.S.C. for the Union of India saying that 12 bills of the petitioner were cleared without any ambiguity while other 36 bills did not contain signature of the petitioner- Contractor and in other 27 bills mode of transportation have been changed and they are also disputed.

10. A reference is made from page no.246 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

11. So far as investigation is concerned, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation conducted by the C.B.I. has also been concluded and the charge sheet has also been filed against the petitioner and erring officials of the respondent-Department; and the matter is presently before the Court of law.

12. In such view of the matter, this Court does not want to pass any interim order in favour of the petitioner.

13. Accordingly Interim Relief Application (IA No.2 of 2026) stands rejected.

14. Learned C.G.S.C. for the Union of India may file a detailed counter affidavit within four weeks.

15. Two weeks' time thereafter is granted to the counsel for the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

16. List this case on 04.05.2026.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.03.2026 SK