Partly allowed¶40

M/S Arora Rcc Works v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026WRIC/25807/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

overhead water tank; Dhakka Yojna; Moradabad Development Authority; contractor; regulation fees deduction Rs. 9,49,975; remaining security amount Rs. 2,40,426; 18% interest on delayed final bill; leakage repair direction; Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test; Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Digital Testing Indicator Test; expert opinion Aligarh Muslim University; three-member committee; District Magistrate Moradabad; arbitrariness; certiorari; mandamus; set aside; claim relegated to Authority; six weeks compliance; writ petition partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 03.05.2025 set aside; matter relegated to the concerned Authority to process the petitioner's claim expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. ¶40

M/S Arora Rcc Works Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 (Annexure No. 8) is liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 03.05.2025 was passed in an arbitrary manner, requiring the petitioner to repair the defect occurred in the overhead tank and making adverse remarks against the petitioner for demanding payment of the deducted regulation fees and remaining security money.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

In light of the expert report (Professor Hasan Irtaza, AMU) showing that the work allotted to the petitioner was found satisfactory, the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 is set aside and the matter is relegated to the concerned Authority to process the petitioner's claim expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.) partly allowed a writ petition by M/s Arora RCC Works, contractor for construction of an overhead water tank in "Dhakka Yojna" (work order dated 09.12.2016; contract bond dated 16.12.2016) for the Moradabad Development Authority. The work was completed on 13.11.2019, but final payment was made only on 29.10.2024 for want of timely testing; about five months later leakage was noticed, and by order dated 03.05.2025 the petitioner was required to repair the leakage on pain of contractual action, with adverse remarks made against it for demanding release of deducted regulation fees (Rs. 9,49,975/-) and remaining security (Rs. 2,40,426/-). Pursuant to the Court's earlier order dated 08.10.2025, a fact-finding inquiry was conducted and Professor Hasan Irtaza of the Civil Engineering Department, Aligarh Muslim University, upon Schmidt Rebound Hammer and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity testing, found the condition of the tank satisfactory - a position fairly conceded by the State and the Authority. Holding the impugned order arbitrary, the Court set it aside and relegated the petitioner's claim to the concerned Authority for expeditious processing, preferably within six weeks of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 25807 of 2025

M/S Arora Rcc Works

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

		.....R	espondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Himanshu Srivastava	Srivastava,	Siddhartha
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Abhinava Krishna M	Krishna Srivast ohan Asthana	ava, C.S.C.,

¶8

Court No. - 21

¶9

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for Moradabad Development Authority.

¶11

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following relief :-

¶12

"i. A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 (Annexure No. 8).

¶13

ii. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the illegally deducted amount of regulation fees amounting to Rs. 9,49,975/- and remaining security amount of Rs. 2,40,426/-.

¶14

iii. A writ order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payment of final bill after more than five years fren the date of completion of the work."

¶15

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner was awarded a work contract for construction

¶16

WRIC No. 25807 of 2025

¶17

¶18

of overhead water tank in "Dhakka Yojna" and consequently, the work order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 09.12.2016. Later on, another work was also assigned to the petitioner for construction of "RCC Staircase upto top dome separate". In pursuance of the aforesaid work order, a contract bond was also executed between the parties on 16.12.2016. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the after due verification of the work, the running bills were cleared and eventually, order impugned dated 03.05.2025 was passed against the petitioner, which is under challenge.

¶19

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his submission, submits that while entertaining the instant writ petition, the Division Bench on 08.10.2025 passed the following order :-

¶20

"1. Heard Shri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri F.A. Ansari,

¶21

learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for Moradabad Development Authority (in short "Authority").

¶22

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned order dated 3.5.2025 and for a direction to respondents to release the deducted amount of regulation fees and remaining security amount along with 18% interest.

¶23

3. The record in question reflects that the petitioner was awarded the work contract for construction of overhead water tank. The work was finally completed on 13.11.2019 but due to non-testing of the aforesaid work in time, the final payment could be made on 29.10.2024. After five months of the final payment, there was leakage in the overhead water tank and as such the order impugned has been passed asking the petitioner to repair the leakage, otherwise further proceeding would be initiated as per the terms of the contract.

¶24

4. Sufficient material is apparent before us, which indicates that huge money of exchequer has been siphoned in the name of construction of overhead water tank. Now it is portrayed before us that the leakage was only in the supply line and burden cannot be shifted upon the petitioner. The conduct of the officials can also not be said to be justified.

¶25

5. Before proceeding further in the matter, we find that fact finding enquiry must be ensured in the matter. Accordingly, we direct the District Magistrate, Moradabad to conduct a fact finding enquiry by constituting a three members committee consisting of Secretary of the Authority; Chief Engineer of the Authority as well as Chief Engineer of the

¶26

Public Works Department and submit a report to this Court by the next date.

¶27

6. List this matter on 03.12.2025 in top ten of the cases.

¶28

WRIC No. 25807 of 2025

¶29

¶30

7. Let a copy of this order be given to learned Standing Counsel free of cost within 48

¶31

hours for necessary compliance."

¶32

In compliance of the earlier order of this Court dated 08.10.2025, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents has placed the Inquiry Report, which is taken on record. A perusal of the report shows that the quality of overhead tank has been inspected by Professor Hasan Irtaza, Department of Civil Engineering, Z.H. College of Engineering and Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, who has conducted "Schmidt Rebound Hammer and the Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Digital Testing Indicator Test" and has found the condition of the overhead tank to be satisfactory.

¶33

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, submits that the order impugned is liable to be set-aside in the light of an opinion of expert of Civil Engineering Department, Aligarh Muslim University.

¶34

Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the Moradabad Development Authority fairly conceded the fact that the quality of the overhead tank has been verified by the expert and as per the report submitted by the technical expert, the quality of the work, which has been assigned to the petitioner by executing agency, has been found to be satisfactory. They further submit that the order impugned may be set-aside and the matter may be relegated back to the competent authority to process the claim of the petitioner in the light of the report submitted by the Three Member Committee.

¶35

We have perused the order impugned and we find that the same has been passed in an arbitrary manner requiring the petitioner to repair the defect occurred in overhead tank and made adverse remarks against the petitioner for demanding the payment of illegal deducted regulation fees and remaining security money.

¶36

Considering the facts and circumstances and in the light of the report submitted by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, wherein an expert opinion has been obtained from the concerned department which shows that the work which was allotted to the petitioner is found to be

¶37

WRIC No. 25807 of 2025

¶38

¶39

satisfactory, the order impugned dated 03.05.2025 is hereby set-aside and the matter is relegated to the concerned Authority to process the claim of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶40

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands partly allowed.

¶41

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶42

April 23, 2026 Sumit S

¶43

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Arora Rcc Works v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Arora Rcc Works v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yamuna Pollution Control Unit vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Ashok Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahesh Chand vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Prem Kumar Singh vs Pawan Kumar Gangwar and 3 Other

Smt. Dharmwati Vs State of U.P. and 16 Others

Master Rudransh Minor and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others