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

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 542043

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
M/S SHIFA ENTERPRISES MOHALLA SARAI AZIZ – Appellant
Versus
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD MANGLORE – Respondent
WPMS 183 / 2025



Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPMS No. 185 of 2025

With

WPMS No. 183 of 2025 WPMS No. 184 of 2025 WPMS No. 191 of 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel

for the petitioners.

2. Mr. Devesh Bishnoi, learned counsel for the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad

Manglour.

3. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS No. 185 of 2025 alone are being

considered.

4. Petitioner is a petty contractor, who is registered with Nagar Palika Parishad Mangloure, District Haridwar. According to him, he was awarded contracts for different civil works, during Financial Year 2022-23 and petitioner completed the works to the satisfaction of

concerned Authority.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Defect Liability Period, in respect of work done by petitioner, was only one year and there was no complaint of any nature in respect of work done by him, during one year

period.

6. The grievance raised by petitioner is

that ten percent security deposit made by petitioner has not been released to him so far.

7. Learned counsel for Nagar Palika Parishad, however, submits that security deposit made by petitioner has been withheld in view of order passed by Hon’ble Minister.

8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that Minister has no business to direct a Statutory Authority to withhold payment of a contractor, who has completed the work to the satisfaction of the concerned Authority and no defect was found in his work during the Defect Liability Period. Thus, withholding of security amount deposited by petitioner does not appear to be proper.

9. Learned counsel for Nagar Palika Parishad submits that a PIL has also been filed by one Mohd. Yaqub alleging certain financial irregularities by the Municipal Authorities.

10. Financial irregularities by the Municipal Authorities cannot be a ground to withhold the security deposit of a contractor who has completed the awarded work to the satisfaction of the concerned Authority.

11. In such view of the matter, the writ petitions are disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make representation(s) to the Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad Manglour for releasing his security deposit, if petitioner(s) makes representation for the purpose within ten days from today, Executive Officer shall

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