Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Shree Vinod Traders vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 8th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 11661 of 2022
Between:-
M/S SHREE VINOD TRADERS THROUGH
PROPRIETOR NAVIN KESHARWANI AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS REGISTERED ADDRESS
WARD NO.8, INFRONT OF STATE BANK OF
INDIA, ANUPPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE COMMISSIONER RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE COUNCIL (NREGA-MP), BHOPAL
NARMADA BHAWAN 2ND FLOOR C WING 59
ARERA HILLS BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. ZILA PANCHAYAT THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER DISTRICT ANUPPUR M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. KANPAD PANCHAYAT THROUGH CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT
DISTRICT ANUPPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
6. ADDITIONAL PROGRAM OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT JAITHARI DISTRICT ANUPPUR
SAN
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
Date: 2022.07.13 17:31:53 IST
7. SHRI ARVIND SINGH ADDITIONAL PROGRAM
2
O F F I C E R JANPAD PANCHAYAT JAITHARI
DISTRICT ANUPPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY SHRI ANKIT AGRAWAL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction against the respondents to act upon the Completion Certificate of the work done by the petitioner and make payment of the work duly completed by the petitioner. Petitioner also prays that this Court should declare that there is correct mentioning of the Completion Certificate on the Portal in relation to the work done by the petitioner, but is not acted upon with an illegal, malafide and arbitrary motive of the respondent No.7 and consequently direct that necessary action be taken against the erring officer.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the State submits that the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.366/2021 (M/s.Balbahadur Singh Thakur Construction Company versus M.P.Gramin Sadak Vikash Pradhikaran) decided on 12.1.2022 has held that the petitioner under the garb of various pleadings is actually seeking release of payment for the work which according to the petitioner has been completed. In the present case, the Completion Certificate has been uploaded on the website of the respondent/Department. Infact, this Completion Certification has been disputed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat-Jaithari, District Anuppur. Thus, in the light of the decision in M/s.Balbahadur Singh Signature Not Verified SAN Thakur Construction Company versus M.P.Gramin Sadak Vikash Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.07.13 17:31:53 IST Pradhikaran (supra), a Writ Court cannot be converted into an Executing 3 Court for payment of bill(s). These all are matters of contract and if there is violation of the contract, the petitioner has a remedy elsewhere.
Shri Anvesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2610/2019 (M/s.Surya Constructions versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others) decided on 8.3.2019 so also another verdict of the Supreme Court in ABL International Limited & Another versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited & Others (2004) 3 SCC 553. He submits that vide Annexure P/8, the Deputy Commissioner/MIS Incharge, Madhya Pradesh State Employment Guarantee Council has given some instructions to the Chief Executive Officer, Additional Programme Coordinator, Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Guarantee Scheme and in the light of this communication, the respondent No.7 is obliged to act.
The Supreme Court in M/s.Surya Constructions versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra) has held that when the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed then direction was issued to the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make necessary payment within four weeks. Infact while deciding the case of M/s.Surya Constructions versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra), the Supreme Court has placed reliance on its earlier judgment rendered in ABL International Limited & Another versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited (supra).
However, from the facts of the present case, it is evident that the authorities sitting at a distant place may have a different view of the matter but the immediate supervisory authority i.e.the Chief Executive Officer of the Signature Not Verified SAN Janpad Panchayat has clearly mentioned in his communication that the said Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.07.13 17:31:53 IST Completion Certificate was not issued by the Staff of the Janpad Office. It is 4 further mentioned that the Gram Panchayat concerned has not given any information about completion of the work in question.
This Court showing extra indulgence towards the petitioner asked Shri Anvesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner to show from record that the concerned Incharge of the work had issued Completion Certificate in the Measurement Book but this Court is constrained to note that the petitioner has enclosed 2 Pages of Measurement Book on Page Nos.16 & 17 of the writ petition, which are blank and no measurements have been recorded. When this Court asked Shri Anvesh Shrivastava to show from record the terms and conditions of the agreement, which was executed between the parties then he submits that he has no knowledge about any agreement being executed and submitted that directly the work order was issued to the petitioner.
All the aforesaid submissions make it abundantly clear that the petitioner's case is not that of payment of an undisputed amount or of an accepted liability in terms of the communication made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Panchayat. It is evident that there exits a dispute as to completion of the work and as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Balbahadur Singh Thakur Construction Company versus M.P.Gramin Sadak Vikash Pradhikaran (supra) that when there is a dispute then the remedy for the petitioner is somewhere else under the Law of Contract and not before the Writ Court and, therefore, following the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Balbahadur Singh Thakur Construction Company versus M.P.Gramin Sadak Vikash Pradhikaran (supra), it is held that the Signature Not Verified SAN jurisdiction of a Writ Court in regard to payment of contractual amount and that Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN too which is disputed cannot be invoked.
Date: 2022.07.13 17:31:53 IST 5 Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to and is hereby dismissed. At this stage, Shri Anvesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it be observed that this order will not prejudice his client's right to avail statutory remedy, if any.
It is made clear that any observation made in this order is in regard to non-availability of the invocation of the writ jurisdiction in the hands of the petitioner under the facts & circumstances and this Court has not travelled beyond this aspect.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.07.13 17:31:53 IST