Court No. - 45
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22080 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is the proprietor of M/s R.K. Enterprises, Khurdabad, Sahabganj, Faizabad. The petitioner had undertaken work and supply contracts for Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. and successfully completed the same but the entire payment for the work done has not been made despite representing to the Respondent No.2, Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Lucknow. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.5,01,947/- is due to be paid to the petitioner. Accordingly, a prayer to direct the Respondent No.4, Project Manager, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Unit Siddharth Nagar, District Siddharth Nagar, to release a sum of Rs.5,01,947/- within a stipulated period has been sought. A further prayer to direct the Respondent No.2, Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow, to decide the representation dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) has been sought.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents No.2, 3 & 4. In the said counter affidavit, in para 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 the details of payment made to the petitioner have been mentioned and it has been admitted that a sum of Rs.1,03,573/- was remaining, which too has been paid to the petitioner vide Cheque No.000016 dated 15.01.2021 and the petitioner has been duly informed of the payment. The other amounts claimed by the petitioner are seriously disputed by the respondents.
In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, in response to the counter affidavit of the respondents No.2, 3 & 4, the petitioner has filed documents to show that the sum as claimed (less Rs.1,03,573/-) is still due to the petitioner.
On consideration of the pleadings of the parties and materials brought on record, we find that the writ petition raises disputed questions of fact. We are conscious of the legal position that on contractual matters a Writ Petition is ordinarily not maintainable and a Contractor, aggrieved by non-payment of disputed dues is required to approach the Civil Court or to invoke the Arbitration Clause embodied in the work contract. A reference may be made to the judgments in Writ (C) No.11544 of 2014 (M/s R.S. Associate through Prop. Reeta Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others) decided on 24.12.2014; Writ (C) No.25075 of 2014 (M/s Prabhu Construction Company through its Proprietor Vs. State of U.P. and another) decided on 05.05.2014 and Misc. Bench No.14618 of 2017 (M/s Odyssey Computers through Marketing Manager Sri Ajai Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 07.07.2017 in this regard.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose off the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to move a fresh representation ventilating his grievances before the Respondent No.4, Project Manager, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Unit Siddharth Nagar, District Siddharth Nagar, within three weeks from today and in case such a representation is moved within the time stipulated, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 pks