Disposed

M/S Sk Enterprises v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024WRIC/15668/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought release of payments for construction works. The court had previously directed the release of funds but they remained unpaid. Finding no legal impediment and declining further indulgence, the court directed the Engineer-in-Chief to remain present in court on the next date to explain the non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Next date hearing fixed on 23.09.2024; Engineer-in-Chief directed to remain present to explain non-compliance of orders dated 10.05.2024 and 01.07.2024.

M/S Sk Enterprises vs State of U.P and 3… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15668 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Sk Enterprises Respondent :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh,Swati Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶5

Present writ petition is preferred inter-alia with following reliefs:-

¶6

"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents especially responden to forthwith release the payment of Rs.27,17,387/-, Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.25,52,076/- for the construction works done in the year 2021-22 respectively in respective of Lohada Contact Road, Titahara to Bundelkhand Expressway Contact Road and Widening of Sudinpur Rasid Road pursuant Works Order (Contract Bond) dated 31.12.2021, 05.02.2022 and 23.03.2021 issued by the respondent nos.3 and 4."

¶7

The Co-ordinate Bench entertained the matter on 10.05.2024 and on the request of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel the matter was adjourned to obtain clear written instructions why contract bonds have not been released thought the work is described to have been executed by the petitioner to the full satisfaction of the respondent authorities and running bills have also been cleared. While adjourning the matter, the respondents were also directed to take necessary action in the meantime, if there is no legal impediment and accordingly communicate to the petitioner. The order dated 10.05.2024 is reproduced as under:-

¶8

"1. Shri C.S. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks time to obtain clear written instructions why contract bonds have not been released though the work is described to have been executed by the petitioner to the full satisfaction of the respondent authorities and running bills have also been cleared.

¶9

2. Put up this case as fresh on 01.07.2024. If there is no legal impediment necessary action would have been taken in the meantime and communicated to the petitioner."

¶10

Thereafter, the matter was heard by another Co-ordinate Bench on 01.07.2024 and again time was accorded to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to get the specific instructions in the matter. The order dated 01.07.2024 is reproduced as under:-

¶11

"In spite of order dated May 10, 2024 wherein learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel was directed to take clear instructions with regard to the pending payment to be made to the petitioner, no clear instructions have been received by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel till date.

¶12

This matter is, accordingly, adjourned and shall be taken up on July 8, 2024, as fresh.

¶13

We make it clear that specific instructions should be received and pending payment should be made to the petitioner by that date."

¶14

The matter was taken up on 15.07.2024 and the adjournment was again sought on behalf of counsel for respondents for ensuring payment to the petitioner. The order dated 15.07.2024 is reproduced as under:-

¶15

"1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the payment of amount due to the petitioner shall be made to him very soon. He prays for adjournment.

¶16

2. List this matter on 12.8.2024, as fresh.

¶17

3. In the meantime, this Court expects that the payment shall be made to the petitioner."

¶18

On the matter being taken up today, it is apprised that till date the payment has not been ensured to the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that it is a sheer case of non compliance of the successive orders of the court. Inspite of aforesaid successive three orders, till date the order dated 10.05.2024 has not been complied with even though by previous order dated 12.08.2024 the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Lucknow was also impleaded as necessary party.

¶20

In view of the above successive orders, we are not inclined to accord further indulgence to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Needless to say that in case the respondents do not ensure compliance of order dated 10.05.2024 on or before the next date fixed in the matter, the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Lucknow shall remain present in the Court with explanation when the matter is listed next.

¶21

Put up as fresh on 23.09.2024 before appropriate Court. This order shall be given to Shri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel today itself for ensuring necessary compliance in the matter.

¶22

Order Date :- 5.9.2024

¶23

A. Pandey

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Sk Enterprises v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sk Enterprises 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Premlata vs Rajeeb Dixit Registrar Gram Panchayat Majoopur Suvkara District Aligarh

Gayatri Devi and 5 Others vs S Rajlingam District Magistrate and Another

Nagendra Kumar Siddhu vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sandeep vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lekhraj Singh vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Latif vs State of Up and Another