Disposed

M/S Avdhesh Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2022WRIC/17023/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus for payment regarding work executed and quashing of an order denying payment based on alleged defects. The court disposed of the petition by relying on an identical order passed in a prior petition involving the same facts, directing further action by the respondent authority upon necessary inspection.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by applying order passed in identical writ petition.

M/S Avdhesh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17023 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Avdhesh Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikrant Neeraj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gambhir Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Vikrant Neeraj, counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri Gambhir Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.22,55,102/- to the petitioner towards the work executed by it in pursuance of an agreement with respondent no.2 and also for quashing the order dated 23.11.2021.

¶7

Counsel for the parties state that the controversy involved in this case is covered by order passed by this Court in identical facts and circumstances on 16.07.2022 in Writ-C No.6864 of 2022 (M/s Awadhesh Sharma vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.) .

¶8

The order passed in the said writ petition is as follows:-

¶9

"The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 34,45,069/- to the petitioner in relation to the work executed by the petitioner under an agreement dated 08.03.2019 between the parties.

¶10

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of a writ petition praying for the same relief. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. In compliance of the said order the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilkhua, Hapur had decided the representation of the petitioner by an order dated 23.11.2021. However, it seems that in the meantime, the petitioner filed a contempt petition before this Court alleging that his representation has not been decided. Therein a direction was issued to the respondents to decide the representation within six weeks. The Executive

¶11

Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilkhua, Hapur by an order dated 20.01.2022 again considered the matter and therein he noted that the representation already stood decided by order dated 23.11.2021.

¶12

The order dated 23.11.2021 records that the work done by the petitioner under the agreement was not of desired quality and several complaints were received in respect thereof. Thereafter the petitioner was sent notices pointing out the deficiencies and requiring him to rectify the defects. Therefore, the petitioner had committed breach of terms of agreement. The order also records that in spite of the petitioner having been issued notices to rectify the defects, the same has not been done by him so far. It is further observed that as and when the defects are removed and information in this regard is furnished by the petitioner to the Nagar Palika Parishad further action will be taken in the matter.

¶13

In the counter affidavit filed today, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have taken the same stand. Moreover, they have also pointed out that the petitioner had given in writing on 04.11.2020 that he has no objection in case amount due in his favour is released after financial condition of the Nagar Palika Parishad improves.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner had rectified the defects and intimated the respondents about the same. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a letter written by one Sabhasad on 15.12.2021 to the Executive Officer mentioning that the petitioner had rectified the defects.

¶15

In our opinion, in case the petitioner has rectified the defects, he should bring the said fact to the knowledge of the Nagar Palika Parishad. This Court is not in a position to examine as to whether the deficiencies have been removed or not. It is a matter which is to be examined and ascertained by Nagar Palika Parishad after due inspection.

¶16

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to bring complete facts to the knowledge of the respondent, Nagar Palika Parishad, so that further action is taken in the matter in accordance with law, as also observed by the Executive officer in his order dated 23.11.2021.

¶17

The petition stands disposed of accordingly."

¶18

Having regard to the statement made by learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 16.07.2022 passed in Writ-C No.6864 of 2022 (M/s Awadhesh Sharma vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.) .

¶19

Order Date :- 20.9.2022 SK

¶20

(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR Date: 2022.09.21 10:07:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Avdhesh Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Avdhesh Sharma v. State of U.P. 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

Israr Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Kamal Chauhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Seema Devi Vs State of U P and 2 Others

M/S Awadesh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Santosh Devi Vs State of U.P. and 87 Others

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. and Another