Writ jurisdiction is not suitable for resolving contractual disputes involving disputed facts; such matters should be adjudicated in civil courts or through arbitration.

JUDGMENT :

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. The present petition has been filed under 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State respondent to release the payment for the contractual work done by the petitioner with regard to the work orders given by the Respondent No. 4/The Project Manager, Slum Urban Development Authority, on behalf of State Government under the contract.

2. The factual matrix of the case is delineated below:

a. The petitioner is a registered contractor with the Public Works Department, Kanpur, who was awarded work for the construction of residence under the Basic Services to the Urban Poor Yojana at Kishanpur, Kanpur Nagar, which was introduced as a reform under a scheme namely 'Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission' launched by the Union Government for urban poor under the slum development program. The funding pattern for this scheme was, 30% participation by the Union Government and 70% by the State Government.

b. Vide work orders dated February 3, 2014 and March 4, 2014, the petitioner was tasked with the construction of houses by the Respondent No.3 under the said Yojna in Kishanpur, Kanpur Nagar.

c. The petitioner completed the construction work within the stipulated period under the supervision of the Project Manager (Respondent No. 4). The work was verified through spot visits by Respondent No. 3 and the Project Manager.

d. Upon satisfaction, the houses were handed over to allottees in multiple phases between June 18, 2014 to June 17, 2015, with proper documentation maintained and submitted to respondent authorities.

e. Bills amounting to Rs.15,81,540/- were submitted on June 17, 2014, which were duly scrutinized and passed by the concerned authorities. Additionally, the petitioner claims that a security deposit of Rs. 96,000/- remains unreleased.

f. The petitioner was also directed to complete additional work (sewer line, window fitting, and brick flooring) without a formal work order. Despite completion and verification of this work, neither was a work order created nor bills processed.

g. Completion certificate was issued on December 27, 2019.

h. Multiple representations were made by the petitioner since October 16, 2015, but payment remains pending. Through letter dated March 4, 2020, the unit in-charge informed that old payments cannot be processed as per state level authorities.

CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER

3. Sri Girish Chandra, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submissions:

i. The petitioner had completed the entire work in the year 2014 and after inspection, bills were duly submitted, also quality of work was found to be in consonance to the norms and standards of the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract but the authority had not made any payment for the executed work.

ii. The bills raised against the work order were duly approved by the Additional Project Manager/Sub Engineer, who are the competent authority, therefore, the same is liable to be paid.

iii. As per the procedure under clause 15 of the terms and condition of the work order, any dispute arising out of the contract shall be decided by the officer in-charge of unit only and the decision shall be final but the authority had neither decided the representation of the petitioner nor paid the amount.

iv. The State authority cannot deny payment for work done and financial constraint is not a valid defence on the part of the respondents authority.

CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENTS

4. Sri Vivek Saran and Sri Mukul Tripathi, counsel appearing on behalf respondents have made the following submissions:

i. Pursuant to the execution of alleged work order for construction of houses, the bill amounting to Rs.15,81,540/- had been raised by the petitioner and the payments had already been made to the petitioner. Since the said bill was again presented before the respondents therefore, the same was rejected by the then Engineer on the ground of being already paid. So far as th