Disposed

G S Matiyani and Sons v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC9 Sept 2025WPMS/2625/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a civil contractor, challenged non-payment for bridge construction before Uttarakhand HC. Court did not adjudicate merits but permitted petitioner to submit a representation to the Competent Authority within ten days for future disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make representation to Competent Authority within ten days for disposal within six weeks.

G S Matiyani and Sons Vs State of Uttarakhand — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:7970

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPMS/2625/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Ketan Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
			2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
			3. Petitioner is a civil contractor. According to him, he was awarded a contract for construction of a Bridge. The grievance raised by petitioner is that the payment for the work done by him has not been released to him by the concerned Department.
			4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:-
			(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the outstanding payment/admitted dues to the petitioner for the work done by petitioner in construction of a bridge over Gori River at Lumti along with annual interest at the rate of 18% till the date of actual payment; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to either foreclose the contract agreement after the measurement of fabrication works upon the ground erection of the bridge parts and release the payment of admitted dues to the petitioner along with interest and/or determine and pay the new rates in accordance with present SOR for the additional work/variation work as per the approved amended drawing and supply the copy of amended design of bridge to the petitioner for ground erection as per the amended drawing.
			5. After arguing for a while, learned

¶3

2025:UHC:7970

¶4

counsel for the petitioner submits that Public Works Department has made a proposal for erecting the Bridge after strengthening it by adding more material and petitioner has submitted a counter offer. He submits that petitioner be permitted to make representation to the Competent Authority. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make representation to the Competent Authority. If petitioner makes such representation within ten days from today, the same shall be dealt with as per law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation along with certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 09.09.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.09 06:27:13 -07'00'

¶5

2025:UHC:7970

G S Matiyani and Sons v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G S Matiyani and Sons 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

Praveen Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kartik Papnai Vs Union of India

Sanjay Pant Vs Uttarakhand Sachivalay Prashasan Vibhag

Dinesh Chandra Phulera Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sonu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Khushi Ram Vs Director Women Welfare