Dismissed

Gaurav Mishra v. District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2019WRIC/42825/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ for outstanding work dues. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that disputed factual questions regarding contractual payments prevent this Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, leaving the petitioner with a common law remedy.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed and consigned to the record.

Gaurav Mishra Vs District Magistrate… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42825 of 2019 Petitioner :- Gaurav Mishra Respondent :- District Magistrate, Ghaziabad And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra,Alok Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶2

Heard Sri Alok Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for State respondent and perused the record.

¶3

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.

¶4

From the perusal of record, we find that the work done by the petitioner is for the year 201617 and 2017-18 and we fail to understand why the petitioner has approached this Court after so much lapse of time.

¶5

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:-

¶6

" 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."

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

Order Date :- 20.12.2019/NS

Gaurav Mishra v. District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Mishra v. District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Prakash Shivhare Vs Union of India and Another

Smt. Rani Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

M/S. S.T. Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Meera Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hariom Verma and Another Vs Hindustan Petroleum Cororation Limited and 2 Others

Sangeeta Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others