Disposed

M/S Maya Construction Thru. Contractor Maya Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024/6933/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition seeking a writ of Mandamus for payment due against hand pump rebore work and for deciding a pending representation was disposed of without delving into the merits. The Court directed the Executive Engineer to decide the representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Executive Engineer to decide the representation dated 18.7.2024 within six weeks.

M/S Maya Construction Thru. Contractor Maya Devi Vs… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56012-DB

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6933 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Maya Construction Thru. Contractor Maya Devi

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Misra,Jyoti Tripathi

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,O.P. Tiwari

¶7

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶9

This petition has been filed with the following main prayer :-

¶10

i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing to the opposite party no.3 to pay the due amount of Rs.4,33,000/- along with 18% interest to the petitioner against the rebore of 19 old hand pumps India Marka in the light of the work order forthwith or within prescribed period as provided by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.

¶11

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the opposite party no.3 to decide the representation dated 18.07.2024 which is pending before him forthwith or as per direction of this Hon’ble Court within prescribed period of time, in the interest of justice.”

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that on 11.9.2019 a short term tender was invited by the opposite parties for installation of hand pumps and rebore of old hand pumps. The petitioner applied for tender form on 19.10.2019 before the opposite party no.3 and he was given contract in year 20192020 and was authorized for rebore of 19 old hand pumps under the work order issued by opposite party no.3 and since then the petitioner continuously performed the work provided to her and completed the work of rebore of 19 old hand pumps within time as per the work order issued by

¶13

the opposite party no.3 and subsequently the contract work order bill has also been verified by the Jal Kal Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Unnao. Then the petitioner approached the opposite parties for making payment of rebore of 19 old hand pumps. A letter has also been issued by the concerned authorities for making payment of Rs.4,33,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner has completed the work order since 2019-2020 but despite of passing four years full payment in respect of the work orders have not been made to the petitioner by the opposite party no.3.

¶14

The petitioner has given several representations to the opposite parties for making payment of due amount. A representation has also been given by the petitioner by hand to the opposite party no.3 on 18.7.2024 but till date no heed has been paid till date, hence, this petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayers.

¶15

This petition is finally disposed of without entering into the matter of controversy, with a direction to the opposite party no.3- Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Unnao to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, on the representation of the petitioner dated 18.7.2024 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 mks

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Maya Construction Thru. Contractor Maya Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Maya Construction Thru. Contractor Maya Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Daur Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Jagdish Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 10 Others

Susmita Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. AND2 Others

Gyatri Devi Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas New Delhi and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Ashish Singh Vs Union of India Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi Thru. Chief Secy. and 3 Others