Allahabad High Court
Rahul Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 November, 2019
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36743 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rahul Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State and have perused the material brought on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer seeking direction to the Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Mandal, Allahabad, District Fatehpur (U.P.) (respondent no.3) to forthwith redress the grievance of the petitioner relating to payment of pending bills of Rs. 6,10,698/- for the work done by the petitioner in electrification of Nalkoop as expeditiously as possible within a stipulated period.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent corporation, under which a contract was awarded in favour of the petitioner for completion of electrification work in various Nalkoop situated in Electricity Distribution Division II, Fatehpur.
A Division Bench of this Court in M/s Kaka Advertising Agency v. U.P. Technical University and others, 2014 (11) ADJ 227 (DB) has held thus:-
"The judgement of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner, reiterates a well established principle that in contractual matters, it cannot be said in absolute terms that a writ petition is not maintainable. The restraint which is imposed while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 is a self-imposed limitation and the Kerala High Court emphasizes the relevant factors which must guide in exercising the self-imposed limitation under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of payments of contractors' bills. These are, as stated in the judgement."
"(1) When there is no disputed question of fact requiring adjudication on detailed evidence.
(2) When no alternate form is provided in the resolution of any disputes pertaining to a contract.
(3) When claim by one party is not contested by the other and the contest does not require adjudication requiring detailed enquiry into facts."
Here in this case we find that payments have been withheld since last 2-3 years and there must be some ground that needed fact finding enquiry and any such exercise is aimed at adjudicating a dispute on facts. Neither we have available mechanism to resolve such disputes nor, we can issue prerogative writs to get the contract enforced, for which the petitioner has remedy available in common law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid liberty and consigned to records.
Order Date :- 14.11.2019 IrfanUddin (Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)