The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking payment of outstanding work dues. The Bench held that the petition involved disputed facts requiring determination by a competent authority, and the petitioner had a civil remedy under common law.
The writ petition is dismissed with directions to the petitioner to seek appropriate civil remedy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30881 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Kumar Singh Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.5 today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State respondents and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has raised his grievance for non-payment of the outstanding dues arising out of work order issued by the respondents pursuant to which the petitioner has already completed work.
From the perusal of record, we find that the work done by the petitioner is for the year 2012 and we fail to understand why the petitioner has approached this Court after so much lapse of time.
Learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition as the disputed questions of fact are involved with regard to the payment of dues arising out of the work done under a contract of work. He has placed reliance upon the judgement and order of coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Writ-C No.-11544 of 2014 M/s R.S. Associate through proprietor Reeta Singh Vs. State of U.P decided on 24.2.2014, in which vide paragraph no.4 the Court has held as under:-
" On the other hand, we have heard this petition for final disposal and we are firmly of the view that it will not be appropriate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction in the matter. It is true that there is no absolute bar in entertaining a petition in a contractual matter. However, in cases such as the present, several issues on facts which have been noted in the earlier part of this judgement have to be determined by the competent authority. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is not warranted for what the petitioner seeks in essence is a decree in a civil suit which cannot be granted in this proceeding, particularly having regard to the nature of the issues involved. The Court, therefore, declines to entertain this petition."
In view of the above, we are also of the considered opinion that the petitioner has remedy to apply under common law for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed and consigned to record.
Order Date :- 24.9.2019/NS
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for payment of outstanding dues arising from a completed work order.
Whether the legislature has provided for a specific remedy for redressal of disputes arising out of work contracts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s R.S. Associate through proprietor Reeta Singh Vs. State of U.PReferred¶6
Writ-C No.-11544 of 2014 M/s R.S. Associate through proprietor Reeta Singh Vs. State of U.P
Rajeshwar Singh
State Of U.P.
4 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
