Allowed

Oraon Construction through Its Proprietor Niraj Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2023WPC/2600/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition directing the University Grants Commission to disburse Rs.8 lakh to the respondent college and the college to pay the petitioner. The court acted based on admitted facts regarding the completion of Hostel construction and payment delays due to bank mandate errors.

What did the court decide?

Directed UGC to pay Rs.8 lakh to the college and the college to pay the same to the petitioner within 50 days; 6% interest on delay.

Oraon Construction through Its Proprietor… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2600 of 2019

¶2

----

¶3

Oraon Construction through its Proprietor Niraj Oraon, son of Sukra Oraon, resident of Village Danrkandria, PO Paharkandria, PS Narkopi, District Ranchi.

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶7

The Principal, Baharagora College, Baharagora, Singhbhum East.

¶8

The Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

---CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---For the Petitioner : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate Mr. Zeeshan Ahmed Khan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prasenjit Mahto, Advocate

¶11

----

¶12

07/ 15.09.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following (Per Ananda Sen, J.):-

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

1. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to release the balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh), which the petitioner is entitled to receive on completion of the construction work of Women’s Hostel at Baharagora College, Baharagora, Singhbhum East. Further, a prayer has been made to refund Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) which was deposited by way of security deposit.

¶15

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted fact that an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh), which the petitioner is entitled to receive, has not been paid to the petitioner. She submits that the UGC has clearly admitted the aforesaid amount and submitted that the because of wrong mentioning of bank details of Baharagora College under the Kolhan University, the amount was not disbursed. Since there is an admission that the petitioner is entitled to receive the amount and there is no disputed question of facts, this writ petition is liable to be allowed.

¶16

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University Grants Commission, submitted that after completion of the work, the Principal InCharge submitted final bill amounting to Rs.84,76,714/- (Rupees Eighty-four Lakh Seventy-six Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen) against which the

¶17

-: 2 :-

¶18

college had paid only Rs.72,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy-two Lakh). While referring to paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, he submits that reimbursable amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakh) was not paid as there was dispute in bank mandate, i.e., details submitted by the College and the details available in PFMS Portal. He contends that the beneficiary of account was shown as Mr. KU and the College was informed to rectify the same, but the College has not corrected the accounts as on date.

¶19

4. The affidavit of the Baharagora College suggests that the petitioner has completed the work to the extent of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakh) out of which Rs.72,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy-two Lakh) has been paid and the security deposit amount has also been paid. So far as balance Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh) is concerned, it has been mentioned that since the UGC has not paid the amount, the same has not been disbursed.

¶20

5. From the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we find that there is no disputed question of facts involved in this case. Since there is no disputed facts and rather the respondents have admitted that the petitioner has completed the construction work and an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh) has not been paid to the petitioner, we are inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶21

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Baharagora College, it has been specifically admitted that the Women’s Hostel has been constructed. The amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh) was sanctioned for construction of the said hostel. It has also been admitted that Rs.72,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy-two Lakh) have been paid and Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh) is due. The same is also the claim of the petitioner.

¶22

7. As per the University Grants Commission, Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh) could not be paid because of the wrong bank details furnished by the College. The College also stated in their counter affidavit that once the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh) is released by the University Grants Commission, same will be paid by the petitioner. This clearly suggests that the amount has not been disbursed because of some internal technical glitches from the end of the Baharagora College or the University Grants Commission for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. The fact remains that the parties have unequivocally admitted that the petitioner is entitled to the balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh).

¶23

-: 3 :-

¶24

8. So far as release of security deposit is concerned, petitioner also admits that the said amount has been released in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

9. Thus, considering the admitted facts of this case, we direct the University Grants Commission to disburse the amount of Rs.8,00,000/(Rupees Eight Lakh) to the College and the College in turn is directed to pay the said amount to the petitioner. The entire process should be completed within 50 (fifty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount will carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the amount fell due and payable to the petitioner.

¶26

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed.

¶27

5. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copies of this order shall be issued as per the Rules.

¶28

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶29

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶30

Kumar/Cp-02

Oraon Construction through Its Proprietor Niraj Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oraon Construction through Its Proprietor Niraj Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Alok Stone Represented through Its Proprietor Alok Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

M/S Alok Stone Represented through Its Proprietor Alok Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

Arun Kumar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Aggar Security Services (I) Private Limited Reprr through Its Managing Director Gopal Krishna Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Labour Employment and Training

Ms Ganga Kavery Constructions Private Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Mr Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

Syed Mumtaz Ahmad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.