Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5791 of 2021 Petitioner :- Nand Kishor Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjai Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 2.1.2021 passed by Respondent no.4, whereby his representation for payment for the work allegedly done by him has been rejected.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though opportunity to complete the work in question had been granted to the petitioner by issuing notice dated 6.5.2015. but the payment has been denied on the plea that the scheme, namely B.R.G.F Scheme, wherein the work in question was sanctioned had been discontinued.
Submission, thus, is that since the work has been completed by the petitioner, that is no justification for denial of payment to him on the premise that the scheme under which the work was allocated has been discontinued.
Considering the above submission, we may note that the order impugned categorically records that under the work order dated 29.12.2012, the petitioner was required to complete the entire work within a period of 3 months, i.e, by 29.3.2013. On account of non-completion of the work within the time given in the contract in accordance with law, as per Clause-7 of the Agreement, certain more time could have been accorded to the petitioner, but he did not move any application to seek further time.
Lastly, two notices dated 11.12.2014 and 6.5.2015 were issued to the petitioner calling upon him to complete the work in question under the technical supervision of the Regional Junior Engineer. But neither the work had been completed nor any reply to the above notices had been given.
The record further indicates that the complete information with regard to the payments made to the petitioner had been given to his son under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 vide communication dated 1.4.2019. It was intimated that work had not been completed in breach of the contract.
Be that as it may, the order impugned categorically records that payment uptill 26.6.2013 for the work completed has already been made and there is no justification for demanding money after 3-4 years without completion of the period of work.
For the findings of fact recorded in the order impugned regarding non-completion of the work allocated to the petitioner under the contract, we do not find it a fit case to issue a writ.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 N.S.Rathour