Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11154 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Hari Shanker Gupta Through Its Proprietor Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar,Girish Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Advocate has filed Vakalat-nama on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 5, which is taken on record.
We have heard Sri Girish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 5.
Through this writ petition, following prayer has been made :
"Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent no.4 to decide the application dated 17.01.2018 moved by the petitioner with regard to deciding the remaining Claims no.1 to 7 and 10 to 11 raised in the application dated 11.02.2013 & 15.02.2013 as per para 24 of the Contract bond and pass award accordingly within the stipulated time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
In substance, the petitioner being Contractor, has filed Original Suit No.938 of 1995 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar for payment of contractual amount. From there, by order dated 19.08.2003, the matter was referred to Chief Engineer in view of clause 24 of Work Contract Agreement with the direction to pass final order within a period of four months.
It is contended that before the Chief Engineer, four items were referred but the Chief Engineer has considered claim of the petitioner only with respect to two items leaving the remaining two (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). It is contended that against the aforesaid order, the respondent nos.2 to 5 have filed review application, which was dismissed on 11.01.2018. Now, after dismissal of the review application, it is stated that another application has been filed by the petitioner for deciding the remaining two issues, since decision thereon has yet not been taken by the Chief Engineer, hence this petition.
Looking to the facts that earlier the petitioner has filed suit and matter was referred to the Chief Engineer in view of Clause 24 of Work Contract Agreement, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, it will be open to the petitioner to avail such other remedies as available to him under law. It is observed that in case such approach is made, the authority concerned shall take the decision in accordance with law expeditiously.
The writ petition is disposed of with the observation aforesaid.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 KA