Disposed

A1-MADEENA Foundation and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jun 2021WRIC/9884/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting a money claim for hot cooked food supply. The Court held that disputed money claims are not for writ jurisdiction, granting liberty to seek civil or arbitration remedies.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to ventilate their grievance in a regular civil proceeding or arbitration proceeding.

A1-MADEENA Foundation and Another Vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9884 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- A1-Madeena Foundation And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Samarath Singh,Sankalp Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4; and perused the record.

¶6

The petitioners had a money claim in lieu of supply of hot cooked food to the Anganbari centres in district Mau. This dispute was earlier raised in Writ C No.28565 of 2018, which was disposed of by order dated 24.08.2018 requiring the concerned authority to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners. Thereafter when decision was not taken, a Contempt Application (Civil) no.3686 of 2019 was filed in which the earlier direction was reiterated and the respondents were directed to take a decision. Pursuant to those orders, by a detailed order dated 27.08.2019, Special Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow has rejected the claim of the petitioners.

¶7

To seek quashing of the order dated 27.08.2019, this petition has been filed.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that earlier the amount payable to the petitioners was admitted and by subsequent order, after an ex-parte enquiry, the claim has been rejected, which is not justified.

¶9

It is well settled that disputed money claims are not ordinarily to be adjudged in writ proceedings. The appropriate course for the person aggrieved is either to institute a civil suit or to take recourse to other alternative remedies such as arbitration etc, if there exists an arbitration clause.

¶10

In view of the above, we dispose of the petition by giving liberty to the petitioners to ventilate their grievance in a regular civil proceeding or arbitration proceeding, if available and so advised.

¶11

Order Date :- 22.6.2021. Rks.

A1-MADEENA Foundation and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A1-MADEENA Foundation and Another 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

Mohd. Taufique Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajpal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiv Shankar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Virendra Kumar Vs the District Consumer Protection Forum and Another

Munendra Kumar Vs State Election Commissioner and 3 Others

Abhijeet Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others