Dismissed¶24

Vipin Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Apr 2025CWP/9015/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vipin Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-9015-2022 (O&M), decided April 07, 2025, High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Kuldeep Tiwari, J., oral order). Key terms: release of outstanding amount for development work of 2015; Municipal Council, Narwana; Annexure P-17; security amount released but work payment withheld (counsel's contention); disputed questions of fact; writ jurisdiction; absence of admissible documents; tender, work order, EMD receipt, agreement not produced; apposite statutory remedy / alternative forum; liberty reserved; CM-19744-CWP-2024 preponement application dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

No monetary or mandatory relief; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue the apposite statutory remedy before the appropriate authority/forum. ¶24

Vipin Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No monetary or mandatory relief; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue the apposite statutory remedy before the appropriate authority/forum.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are to be directed to consider the petitioner's various representations and release the outstanding amount for the development work carried out by him (work of the year 2015). +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the apposite statutory remedy before the appropriate authority/forum in case he has any grievance with regard to non-payment of any amount.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The claim raised highly disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceedings, especially in the absence of any admissible document on record; such disputes require adjudication after evidence is adduced by the parties before the apposite authority/forum.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP-9015-2022 (O&M)) by Vipin Kumar against the State of Haryana and others, seeking directions to the respondents to consider his various representations and to release the outstanding amount for development work carried out by him (work pertaining to the year 2015) — DISMISSED by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Kuldeep Tiwari, J.). HELD: The claim raised highly disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings, especially in the absence of any admissible document on record; apart from Annexure P-17 (relied upon to contend that the security amount stood released but payment for the work done did not), no material document was produced despite respondent No.3's letters calling for the original tender, work order, EMD receipt and agreement, and respondent No.3 stated that no record of the alleged work exists with the Municipal Council, Narwana. Such disputes require adjudication on evidence before the apposite authority/forum. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the apposite statutory remedy. Preponement application CM-19744-CWP-2024 dismissed as infructuous; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

104 CWP-9015-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 07, 2025

VIPIN KUMAR

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶8

Present: Mr. Suryaveer Surjewala, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Bhupender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana.

¶10

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent No.3.

¶11

¶12

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶13

CM-19744-CWP-2024

¶14

The instant preponement application is dismissed , as having been

¶15

rendered infructuous.

¶16

CWP-9015-2022 (O&M)

¶17

Through the instant writ petition, prayer is made for issuance of directions upon the respondents to consider the various representations submitted by the petitioner and to release the outstanding amount of the development work carried out by him.

¶18

The work, for which the petitioner is claiming payment, appertains to the year 2015. In the written statement furnished by the respondent No.3, a categoric stand has been taken that, there is no record available with the Municipal Council, Narwana, in respect of the alleged work, as figured in the present petition. It has also been voiced in the written

¶19

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.04.08 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶20

¶21

CWP-9015-2022 (O&M)

¶22

statement that, despite the respondent No.3 addressing various letters to the petitioner to produce the original record, i.e. tender, work order, EMD receipt, agreement etc., for enabling him to evaluate his claim and thereupon to pass a speaking order, yet nothing has been produced by the petitioner.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner has, except his placing reliance upon Annexure P-17, not brought on record any material document to substantiate the claim of the petitioner. By placing reliance upon Annexure P-17, the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to establish before this Court that, although security amount has been released in favour of the petitioner, however, payment in respect of the work done has not been released.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his beseeching the relief penned down in the lead paragraph of this order, raised highly disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in the instant proceedings, especially in the absence of any admissible document on record, rather the same require them becoming adjudicated after evidence becomes adduced by the parties before the apposite authority/forum. Therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed . However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to, in case he has any grievance with regard to non payment of any amount, take recourse to the apposite statutory remedy before the appropriate authority/forum.

¶25

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶26

April 07, 2025	(KU	LDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	:	Yes/No

¶27

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.04.08 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Vipin Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar v. State of Haryana and 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

At Constructions Vs State of Haryana and Others

Harwinder Singh Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala

Shiv Shakti Sharma Vs Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India and Others

M/S Garg Reality Infra Promoters LLP Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sabnam Khatun and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Boys and Machines Private Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Others