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

2021 Supreme(All) 395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANJAY YADAV, PRAKASH PADIA, JJ.
M/S R.K. Road Lines Private Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Ltd. and Others - Respondent
WRIT - C No. 7652 of 2021
Decided On : 08-06-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Bipin Lal Srivastava, Liaqat Ali Siddiqui
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Liaqat Ali Siddiqui

Point of Law: Reimbursement of amount - Entitlement of - Grant of relief of this nature would virtually amount to a money decree. Petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to remedies available by raising such a claim either invoking an arbitration clause (if it exists in the contract between the parties) or if there is no provision for arbitration, to move the competent civil court with a money claim.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226 and 229 - Payment of Interest - Award - Entitled for reimbursement of amount - Order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to pay amount with an interest at the rate of 12% calculated from 01.12.2018 an also may be pleased to direct to return of the security money to petitioner forthwith - Contained in petition are that the petitioner was awarded a contract for carrying and handling fertilizers for the period between - Completion of aforesaid work - Petitioner gave application for payment also gave an application submitting detail bills. When no payment was made, petitioner submitted a reminder - petitioner moved an application to the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation of amount mentioned in Bill and also with regard to security money, he stated that it may be returned after inquiry - On petitioner filed application before District Manager PCF had given report in his favour and prayed for payment of the bill amount.

Finding of the Court: Directions for payment can be issued in the writ jurisdiction. In the present case, the ratio of this judgement will also not help the petitioner, since in the present case amount payable towards work done by the petitioner was not admitted by the authorities. Insofar as the judgment in the case of Ms. Biotech System (supra) is concerned - We may, therefore, add that it cannot be held in absolute terms that a writ petition is not maintainable in all contractual matters seeking enforcement of obligations on part of the State or its authorities. The limitation in exercising powers under Article 226 in contractual matters is essentially a self-imposed restriction - sought to be set up by the petitioner has been strongly disputed. The payments in respect of which the petitioner have raised their claims pertain to contractual and commercial obligations, and the pleadings and the material which are on record, do not in any manner indicate that it is a public law remedy which the petitioners are seeking to invoke so as to persuade this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed

JUDGMENT :

PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. The matter is taken up through video conferencing.

2. Heard Sri S.K. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Bipin Lal Srivastava and Sri Vinayak Verma, learned counsel for petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 4 and Sri Liaqat Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3.

3. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

    "A. issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.15,96,674.75/- with an interest at the rate of 12% calculated from 01.12.2018 an also may be pleased to direct to return of the security money to the petitioner forthwith.

B. issue any other suitable order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

4. Facts in brief as contained in the petition are that the petitioner was awarded a contract for carrying and handling fertilizers for the period between 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. After completion of the aforesaid work, on 30.03.2018 the petitioner gave application for payment and on 22.12.2018 he also gave an application submitting detail bills. When no payment was made, the petitioner submitted a reminder on 08.01.2019. On 10.01.2019, Executive Director (Fertilizer) wrote a letter to District Manager PCF, Budaun for stop payment due to an inquiry pending against the petitioner. Thereafter on 26.02.2019 the petitioner moved an application to the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Lucknow for relase of amount mentioned in the Bill and also with regard to the security money, he stated that it may be returned after inquiry. On 29.11.2019 the petitioner filed application before the District Manager PCF Badaun stating therein that S.S.P. Badaun had given report in his favour and prayed for payment of the bill amount. On 03.12.2019, District Magistrate, Baduan wrote a letter to the Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh, State Warehouse Corporation, Regional Office Bareilly regarding non-involvement of the petitioner in any crime. The petitioner also submitted an application to the District Manager PCF informing him regarding his innocence and payment of bills and also informed the Managing Director PCF Lucknow. On this, Deputy General Manager (Fertilizer) sought information from District Manager PCF Badaun regarding his innocence. Thereafter on 06.05.2020, the District Manager P.C.F. Badaun informed the Deputy General Manager (Fertilizer)that the petitioner is exonerated from all the accusations and the petitioner was entitled for payment but till date no payment has been made. Hence the present writ petition.

5. It is argued by Sri S.K. Verma, learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner is entitled for the amount of contract namely 15,96,674.75/- along with interest @ 12% as well as the security money deposited by him. He relied upon a letter dated 06.05.2020 written by District Manager, P.C.F. Budanun to Deputy General Manager (Fertlizer) U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. Lucknow, copy of which is appended as Annexure 12 to the petition. In view of the same, it is argued that since the claim set up by the him has been admitted by the District Manager P.C.F. Budanun, therefore, he is entitled for reimbursement of the amount as claimed by him. The aforesaid letter dated 06.05.2020 is reproduced below:-

    ;wŒihŒdkvkWijsfVo QMjs'ku fyŒ] ftyk dk;kZy; cnk;wW

    i=kad%&ihŒlhŒ,QŒ@moZŒ@ys[kkŒ@2020&21 fnukad 06-05-2020

    lsok es]

    'kjheku mi egkizca/kd¼moZjd½

    mŒizŒ dksvkWijsfVo QsMjs'ku fyŒ

    LVs'ku jksM] y[kuÅ

    fo"k;%&eSllZ&vkjŒdsŒ jksMykbal banjk pkSd cnk;wW ds yfEcr fcyks dk Hkqxrku djus ds laca/k esA

    egksn;]

    vki vius i=kad ihŒlhŒ,QŒ@2019&20@14734 fnukad 24-02-2020 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djs] tks eSllZ vkjŒdsŒjksMykbal ifjogu Bsdsnkj }kjk Qjojh 18 ls uoacj 2018 rd fd, x, ifjogu ,oa gSMf

                  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