Disposed

Farooq Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2019WRIC/12362/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition for payment of undisputed outstanding dues from a construction contract was filed. The Court did not express opinion on merits but directed authorities to dispose of the claim expeditiously within four months after inviting comments and giving the petitioner an opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Superintending Engineer to consider claim, invite comments from Executive Engineer, afford petitioner opportunity, and pass appropriate order within four months.

Farooq Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12362 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Farooq Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Petitioner is permitted to implead Superintending Engineer as respondent no.3 during the course of the day.

¶6

Petitioner has preferred this writ petiton for the following relief :-

¶7

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the Respondent Authorities to make the final payment of petitioner sum of Rs.11,35,802.00 alongwith reasonable interest."

¶8

Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has invited tender for construction of QUANET-B from Village-Mubarakpur to Sad Nagar Zamindari Bandh on Ram Ganga river. Petitioner was a civil contractor and completed his work, however his full payment has not been paid.

¶9

Learned Counsel for petitioner has invited our attention to an experiance certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Moradabad dated 25.9.2018, wherein, it is recorded that against the bill of the petitioner a sum of Rs.19,72,171/- has already been paid and about Rs.11,35,802/- is outstanding dues.

¶10

We have heard learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the material on record.

¶11

Earlier time was granted to learned Standing Counsel on 12.4.2019 and 15.4.2019, but no instruction has been received by him.

¶12

Ordinarily, this Court does not issue direction for payment of outstanding dues arising out of a contract, however, having regard to the fact that amount due is not disputed by the respondents, as noted above, we are of the view that end of justice should be made by issuing a direction upon the Superintending Engineer to consider the cause of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order after inviting the comments from concerned Executive Engineer and furnishing opportunity to the petitioner. The said exercise be undertaken, expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of communication of this order.

¶13

Needless to say that we have not expressed our opinion on the merits of the case and the first respondent shall pass the order independently and

¶14

in accordance with law.

¶15

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 13.5.2019 S. Singh

Farooq Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farooq Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shambhavi Kant and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arvind Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Mani Ram and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

M/S Asha Ram Contractors Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Karamveer Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Anoop Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others