Disposed

Salim Akhtar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2019WRIC/28112/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought payment for expenses incurred on a clock tower construction project stopped due to a court order. The High Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for expenses without being influenced by the order stopping the work.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.4 directed to consider petitioner's application dated 01.08.2019 for expenses within four weeks, uninfluenced by District Magistrate's order.

Salim Akhtar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28112 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Salim Akhtar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Thakur Prasad Dubey,Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

1. Heard Sri Thakur Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Anand Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record.

¶6

2. By means of this petition the petitioner has raised his grievance regarding non payment of the money which he has spent towards labour and other expenses pursuant to a work order dated 28.02.2019 issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sahaspur, Bijnor, namely, respondent No.4.

¶7

3. It transpires from the record that while the clock tower was being constructed by the present petitioner, some writ petition got filed before this Court in the nature of Public Interest Litigation by one Mohd. Munir and one another in which a direction was issued to look into the grievance of these petitioners regarding their complaint against the construction of the clock tower on a public road. The said representation of the complainants came to be considered by the District Magistrate and construction of the clock tower was directed to be stopped vide order dated 26.07.2019 holding it to be not in public interest. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sahaspur, Bijnor, namely, respondent No.4, passed a consequential order dated 01.08.2019 stopping the construction work of the clock tower. Resultantly, the petitioner has also not been paid the money/expenses that has been incurred in carrying out the construction up to the stage when the order dated 01.08.2019 was passed. It has been argued before this Court that it is only because of the decision by the District Magistrate on the representation of the complainant dated 26.07.2019 and the consequential order passed by the Executive Officer dated 01.08.2019 that the payments have been stopped.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already made in this regard an application before the respondent No.3 and 4 on 01.08.2019 which has been duly received in the office of respondent No.3 and which has been filed as

¶9

Annexure 7 to the writ petition seeking release of the expenses/money towards the expenses that has been incurred. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner if the construction of the clock tower has come to be stopped. He carried out the construction work under the duly issued work order by the respondent No.4 and, therefore, in the circumstances if the concerned respondent is no more interested in getting the clock tower constructed or has stopped construction under the order of higher authority, the petitioner cannot be denied to realize expenses that have already incurred under an agreement arrived in between the petitioner and the Nagar Panchayat.

¶10

5. Under the above facts and circumstances, we made a pointed query to the learned Standing Counsel as to whether the District Magistrate has any role in stalling the payment of the money to the petitioner for the work that he has carried out. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the District Magistrate has passed order to the extent only that the construction will not be done and the complaint has come to be allowed in compliance of the order of this Court.

¶11

6. In view of the above, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that if the petitioner has carried out the construction work under the work order and because of the intervention of the Court or other proceedings, the construction of the clock tower has to be stopped at the instance of the Nagar Panchayat concerned, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.

¶12

7. In such above view of the matter the respondent No.4 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner as raised in his application dated 01.08.2019 without being influenced by the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 26.07.2019 and his own order dated 01.08.2019. The necessary decision shall be taken by the concerned competent respondent No.4 within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 20.9.2019 Nitin Verma

¶14

(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Salim Akhtar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim Akhtar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalindi Pulin Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Mathura and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt Guddi Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Sanjay Light House and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Anilesh Raj Vs Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Uttar Pradesh Lucknow and 3 Others

Bhuneshwar Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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