CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2610 OF 2019

8th March 2019

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. Vikram D. Chauhan Mr. Balwant Singh Billowria Mr. Rajesh Singh Mr. Shashi Bharat Bhushan Mr. Praveen Kumar Ms. Shilpa Singh
Respondent Counsel: Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwa Mr. Y. R. Mishra Ms. Rinchen Wangmo Mr. Vedant Bharadwaj Mr. Amol Chitravanshi Mr. V. Shekhar Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey Mr. Ashutosh Sharma Mr. Kamlendra Mishra
Act Name: Constitution of India, 1950

HeadLine : (A) Constitution of India, Arts.226, 299 – Writ jurisdiction – Interference in contractual matters – Where State behaves arbitrarily, even in realm of contract, HC can interfere u/Art.226 of Constitution. (Para 3)

(B) Constitution of India, Arts.226, 299 – Govt. contract – Petitioner/contractor complaining non-payment by U. P. Jal Nigam even after completion of work – Dismissal of writ petition on grounds that disputed questions of fact arise and matter pertains to contract – Not justified – Amount payable to petitioner is not disputed, non-availability of fund is pleaded by State – Direction issued for payment to petitioner within 4 weeks with interest for delay. (Paras 3, 4)

Cases Cited :
Para 3: ABL International Ltd. and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, 2004 (3) SCC 553

JUDGEMENT

Leave granted.

1. Having heard learned counsel for all the parties, we find that the present is a case in which payment for extra work by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam has not been made though such work was expressly sanctioned and done to their satisfaction. The appellant before us has had to run from pillar to post to get the money owed to them. By an order dated 21.10.2013, the High Court asked the appellant to make a representation and finally, in a contempt petition moved on 07.02.2014, directed the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to answer this representation. The representation so made was answered by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam as follows:
“Due to aforesaid facts and description it is clear that Rs.113.29 lacs has to be released by Government/Mela Administration against the Budget presented by U.P. Jal Nigam, Magh Mela 2008-09. (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29505 of 2014) There is no money available under account of Magh Mela 2008-09 of U.P. Jal Nigam. And could not obtained the rest of amount from the Mela Administration/Government. Therefore, payment regarding M/s. Surya Construction, 323/3, Alopibagh, Allahabad will be paid after availability of the money from the Government.”

2. It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No. 25216/2014, the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2014 dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [‘ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others’ (2004 (3) SCC 553)].

3. This being the case and the work having been completed long back in 2009, we direct the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the necessary payment within a period of four weeks from today. Given the long period of delay, interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum may also be awarded.

4. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Decision : Ordered accordingly.