Partly allowed

Amalesh Singh v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2019WRIC/2956/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Superintending Engineer's rejection of a payment claim. The Court held that the Engineer failed to examine the claim on merits by relying solely on another report. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for an objective decision with an opportunity of personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.11.2018 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Superintending Engineer to consider and decide the claim objectively and fairly, allowing

Amalesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2956 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Amalesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,Diwakar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

This petition for writ is before us to examine correctness of the order passed by the Superintending Engineer (respondent no.7) by invoking the authority under clause 24 of the Lump sumcum-Item Rate Contract, Conditions thereof.

¶8

Suffice to mention that the petitioner a licensed contractor preferred a petition for writ before this Court i.e. Writ-C No.35959 of 2018 ventilating his grievance with regard to payment of dues against the work done by him. The writ petition aforesaid came to be disposed of under an order dated 1st November, 2018 by directing the petitioner to approach the Superintending Engineer for settlement of his dispute. In compliance of the direction aforesaid, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the Superintending Engineer, the Superintending Engineer thereon called a report from the Executive Engineer. The Superintending Engineer by relying upon the report given by the Executive Engineer rejected the claim of the petitioner.

¶9

The argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the Superintending Engineer as per clause 24 of the conditions of contract is required to examine claim of the petitioner on its own merits and required to give his conclusion but in the case in hand, the Superintending Engineer failed to examine claim of the petitioner on merits and he has rejected the same just by placing reliance upon a report given by the Executive Engineer.

¶10

As per clause 24 of the conditions of contract, the Superintending Engineer is required to give a decision with regard to the dispute between the parties to the contract. Meaning thereby, the Superintending Engineer while examining a claim under clause 24 is supposed to consider submissions of

¶11

rival parties and then by applying adequate application of mind is required to arrive at a definite conclusion.

¶12

In the case in hand, the Superintending Engineer under the order impugned a report given by the Executive Engineer without even referring the issues raised by the petitioner.

¶13

In view of it, the order impugned dated 30th November, 2018 is apparently not in spirit of clause 24 of the conditions of contract. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Superintending Engineer to consider and decide claim of the petitioner objectively, fairly by taking into consideration all the issues raised by the petitioner in the representation aforesaid. The Superintending Engineer, if demanded shall also provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶14

Order Date :- 20.2.2019 Bhaskar

¶15

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

Amalesh Singh v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amalesh Singh v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

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

Syed Mohammad Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sri Ram Nishad Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ram Sumer Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Prakash Chandra Khandelwal and 4 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Om Prakash Mittal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Chandra Maurya Vs Union of India and 9 Others