SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 1477

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rohinton Fali Nariman, Vineet Saran, JJ.
M/s Surya Constructions - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2610 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29505 of 2014)
Decided On : 08-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Tripurari Ray, Vikram D. Chauhan, Balwant Singh Billowria, Rajesh Singh, Shashi Bharat Bhushan, Praveen Kumar, Ms. Shilpa Singh, Advocates, for the Appellants; Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Y. R. Mishra, Ms. Rinchen Wangmo, Vedant Bharadwaj, Amol Chitravanshi, V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashutosh Sharma, Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates, for the Respondents

The State's arbitrary behavior warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even in the realm of contract.

Headnote:

Extra Work Payment - Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam - The court directed the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make necessary payment for extra work done by the appellant, emphasizing that the amount payable was undisputed and the State's arbitrary behavior warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant sought payment for extra work done, which was sanctioned and completed to the satisfaction of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam. Despite the undisputed amount owed, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, citing disputed questions of fact and the contractual nature of the amount due.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no disputed question of fact regarding the amount owed to the appellant and emphasized that even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the State behaves arbitrarily.

Issues: Disputed questions of fact, contractual nature of the amount due, and the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The amount payable to the appellant was undisputed, and the State's arbitrary behavior warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The court directed the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the necessary payment within four weeks and awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum due to the long period of delay.

ORDER

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. 25216/2014, 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 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top