M/S Sri Bala Ji Construction and Suplier Thru. Proprietor Ravindra Nath Srivastava and Anr. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 157 of 2026

¶3

M/S Sri Bala Ji Construction And Suplier Thru. Proprietor Ravindra Nath Srivastava And Anr.

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Family Welfare Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

Health And Family Welfare Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prafulla Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Puneet Chandra

¶8

Court No. - 5

¶9

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶10

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel along with Shri Prafulla Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondent Nos.1, 4 and Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶11

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is a proprietorship firm and is involved in the supply of various medicines and medical equipment and had supplied goods for the financial year 2024-25 through the Government-e-Marketplace Portal (hereinafter referred to as "GeM Portal") for medical supplies amounting to Rs.18,27,440/-. It has been submitted that the bills were raised by the petitioner, but till date the said amount has not been paid.

¶12

3. It has further been submitted that the respondents have admitted the liability for the said amount and, despite the aforesaid, the amount could not be paid to the petitioner on account of a lack of budgetary resources. In this regard, the attention of this Court has been drawn to the letter dated 04.12.2025 authored by the Chief Medical Officer, Kushinagar, wherein the reason for non-payment is indicated as lack of budgetary allocation.

¶13

4. Today, when the matter has been taken up, learned Standing Counsel has handed over written instructions received from the Chief Medical Officer, Kushinagar, wherein, in unequivocal terms, it has been stated that the entire goods, as stated by the petitioners, have been received for an amount of Rs.15,32,540/- and the same amount is also payable. Accordingly, from the aforesaid facts, it is abundantly clear that the amount is not disputed. The written instructions are taken on record.

¶14

5. We further find that the Supreme Court, in the case of Surya

¶15

WRIC No. 157 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

Constructions vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 794 , has stated that even a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable even if it is within the realm of contract and the dues have been admitted by the State.

¶18

6. Similar views have been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors vs. Chief General Manager and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1400 .

¶19

7. In the present case, we find that the respondents have admitted the liability for the goods supplied by the petitioners and as such, the writ petition is allowed. Considering that there is a difference between respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 with regard to the availability of funds, it is directed that a meeting of respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 shall be convened by the respondent No.1, i.e., the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow within the next four weeks. In the said meeting, a decision shall be taken as to who is responsible for making the payment to the petitioners and in case it is found that respondent No.2 has already submitted the funds to respondent No.4, then respondent No.4 shall release the fund in favour of the petitioners within three weeks thereafter in accordance with law. The Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow shall also ensure that the payment is made as per the admitted dues referred to hereinabove. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to take recourse to other legal remedies for recovery of the outstanding amount/resolution of disputes with the respondents.

¶20

8. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands allowed .

¶21

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶22

February 26, 2026 Shubhankar

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Sri Bala Ji Construction and Suplier Thru. Proprietor Ravindra Nath Srivastava and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sri Bala Ji Construction and Suplier Thru. Proprietor Ravindra Nath Srivastava and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantanu Agrawal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 3 Others

Rafat Moid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

M/S S.M.Group Constructions,Thru.Proprietor Zaid Malik vs State of U.P.Thru.Its Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Urban Development (Nagar Vikas Anubhag) Lko. and 3 Others

Waqf Imambada Kallu Reg.No. I 1717 Thru. Beneficiary and Erstwhile Member Sri Anjum Sayeed vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minority Welfare and Waqf and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

U.O.I. Thru.Its Secy.Ministry of Communications and Information Tech. Deptt. of Posts and 3 Others vs R.T. Verma