M/S Khan Electric Works and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S Khan Electric Works and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order only: matter adjourned with direction to respondents to seek complete instructions and apprise the Court why payment of the admitted amount of Rs. 8,99,547/- with interest should not be directed; Court inclined to summon the Director (Technical) to explain sustainability of the impugned order and indicated possible contempt proceedings for non-compliance of the order dated 18.03.2025 in Writ-C No. 2288 of 2025; matter to be put up as fresh on 13.1.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 of the Director (Technical) rejecting the petitioner's representation is sustainable when material on record admits the petitioner's claim. +1 more

Court's answer

The Executive Engineer's noting records that Rs. 8,99,547/- is payable to the petitioner; despite such material being available on record, the Director (Technical), Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., without appreciating the correct facts and without due application of mind, passed a cryptic order rejecting the petitioner's representation.

Ratio / Principle

Passing such an order despite the existence of supporting evidence prima facie amounts to an abuse of the process of law, and the Court is inclined to summon the Director (Technical) to explain how the impugned order is sustainable.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 40; Saral Srivastava and Sudhanshu Chauhan JJ.), Writ-C No. 44513 of 2025, M/s Khan Electric Works and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others (order dated 17.12.2025). The writ petition assailed the order dated 11.09.2025 of the Director (Technical), Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., rejecting the petitioner's representation seeking release of the amount due towards work executed under contract, on the plea that no evidence or material had been submitted, although the record contained the petitioner's detailed representation dated 20.06.2025 with supporting documents and the Executive Engineer's noting (Annexure 13) stating that Rs. 8,99,547/- was payable to the petitioner. The Court found the impugned order cryptic, passed without appreciating the correct facts and without due application of mind, and observed that passing such an order despite supporting evidence prima facie amounted to an abuse of the process of law. On the request of counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4, the Court adjourned the matter with a direction to seek complete instructions on why payment of the admitted amount with interest should not be directed, indicated it would otherwise summon the Director (Technical), and warned of possible contempt proceedings for non-compliance of the Court's earlier order dated 18.03.2025 in Writ-C No. 2288 of 2025 directing a reasoned order. Matter put up fresh on 13.1.2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 44513 of 2025

M/S Khan Electric Works And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 6 Others

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Archana Singh, Shreeprakash Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jai Krishna Upadhyay, Krishna Agarawal, Om Prakash Mishra

Court No. - 40

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Director (Technical), Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., whereby the petitioner's representation seeking release of the amount due towards the work executed by him has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit any evidence or material on record in respect of his claim

We find from the record that the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation on 20.06.2025, annexing relevant documents, evidencing that the petitioner has discharged the work under the contract, which has been received in the office of the Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Jhansi. We further find from the record that the petitioner has also enclosed the noting of the Executive Engineer addressed to the Managing Director and the Director (Finance), Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. as Annexure 13 to the writ petition, wherein the Executive Engineer stated that an amount of Rs. 8,99,547/- is payable to the petitioner by the respondent. Despite the aforesaid material being available on record, the Director (Technical), Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., without appreciating the correct facts and without due application of mind, passed a cryptic order.

WRIC No. 44513 of 2025

2

We are surprised at the passing of such an order by an officer holding the rank of Director (Technical). In the circumstances, we are inclined to summon the Director (Technical), Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., to explain as to how the impugned order is sustainable, particularly when there is material on record admitting the claim of the petitioner. Passing such an order, by Director (Technical) despite the existence of supporting evidence, prima facie amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

However, on the request of Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4, the matter is adjourned with a direction to seek complete instructions and to apprise this Court as to why the Court should not direct for payment of the admitted amount of Rs. 8,99,547/–, as is evident from the noting of the Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Jhansi, along with interest.

In case the instructions placed before us are found unsatisfactory, we may call upon the Director (Technical), Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., to explain as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for non-compliance of the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 2288 of 2025, whereby the Director (Technical) was directed to pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner.

Put up as fresh on 13.1.2026.

December 17, 2025 Gaurav

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad