Disposed

M/S Narendra Electric Company v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC22 Dec 2020WPMS/1260/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions filed by contractors seeking payment for election-related work. The High Court, identifying common questions of fact and law, consolidated the petitions for disposal without deciding the merits, directing the parties to make representations to the State Election Commission within specified timelines for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; Liberty granted to petitioners to submit representations to the Secretary, State Election Commission, Uttarakhand, within two weeks for fresh consideration.

M/S Narendra Electric Company Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

WPMS No. 1262 of 2020 WPMS No. 1257 of 2020 WPMS No. 1260 of 2020 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P. Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for State Election Commission, Uttarakhand. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Advocate for Nagar Nigam, Rishikesh. Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for Nagar Palika Parishad, Doiwala. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for Nagar Nigam, Dehradun. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

¶3

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of WPMS No. 1262 of 2020 are being considered. Relief sought in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1262 of 2020 is as follows:

¶4

“I. issue a writ, rule or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the entire amount i.e. Rs. 20,06110.00 of bills against the work done by him along with interest, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the petition.”

¶5

According to the petitioner, he responded to a Notice Inviting Tender issued by Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Rishikesh and his bid was found to be the lowest, accordingly, he was granted contract for providing infrastructure, including lighting & sitting arrangement, and also for providing refreshment at the polling booths, strong room,

¶6

where ballot boxes were kept after elections, and also at counting stations.

¶7

It is the case of the petitioner that he carried out the work under contract for which contract was awarded to him to the satisfaction of concerned authorities, however, no payment for the work done by him has been made to him.

¶8

It is further the case of the petitioner that contract was awarded to him with the approval of District Magistrate, who happens to be the District Election Officer, in respect of elections to local bodies.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is the State Election Commission, who has to make payment to the contractors for the work done by them for holding elections to local bodies.

¶10

Learned counsel for State Election Commission submits that petitioner(s) had made exorbitant claim for the work done by him, which was beyond the limit prescribed by the State Election Commission, therefore, payment has not been made so far.

¶11

Having regard to the relief claimed in the writ petitions, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to petitioner(s) to approach the Secretary, State Election Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun by making representation(s). If such representation(s) is made within two weeks from today, the decision thereupon shall be taken as early as possible; but, not later than ten weeks from the date of receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of this order.

¶12

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶13

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 22.12.2020

¶14

Arpan

M/S Narendra Electric Company v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Narendra Electric Company v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Umesh Chandra Devrani Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Labour Dehradun Uttarakhand

Abhendra Chhetri Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Uttarakhand Auto Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S New Haridwar Electric Store Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Narendra Electric Company Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanjeev Sharma Vs Pushpa Agarwal