M/S Infrastructure Development Consultants Thru. Authorized Representative Umesh Kumbhalkar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Transport Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S Infrastructure Development Consultants, filed a writ petition seeking to quash office orders dated March 29, 2024, and April 24, 2024, issued by the Transport Commissioner. These orders allegedly withheld Rs. 78,60,260/- with GST against three bills for work performed between March 2023 and February 2024. The petitioner also sought a mandamus for payment of these withheld amounts and for a fourth bill dated March 22, 2025, amounting to Rs. 11,39,910/- with GST. The State-respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, citing Clauses 56 and 57 of the contract which provide for amicable settlement and arbitration for disputes. The petitioner stated they had not received a reply to their letter dated June 12, 2025, seeking reasons for the deductions.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Transport Commissioner. The Commissioner is required to consider the petitioner's letter dated June 12, 2025, and inform the petitioner about any discrepancies found in the performance of the contract within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. This communication must contain detailed reasons justifying the necessity of deductions from the petitioner's bills. The Court did not explicitly rule on the maintainability of the writ petition but provided a procedural direction to address the petitioner's grievance. The specific amounts in dispute and the contractual clauses were noted, but the core issue of whether the writ was the appropriate remedy in the face of arbitration clauses was implicitly bypassed by directing the authority to provide reasons.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the arbitration and dispute resolution clauses (Clauses 56 and 57) in the contract between the petitioner and the State-respondents? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable because they have not been provided with any reasons for the deductions made from their bills. They referred to their letter dated June 12, 2025, to the Transport Commissioner, seeking an explanation, and stated that no reply has been received. Therefore, they cannot initiate proceedings under Clause 56 of the contract as they are unaware of the discrepancies. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Surya Constructions Vs. State of U.P. and others and a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Kanika Construction Vs. State of U.P. and others. State-respondents' arguments: The State-respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, pointing to Clauses 56 and 57 of the contract, which mandate an attempt at amicable settlement and, failing that, arbitration for resolving disputes arising from the contract.
Sections Cited
Section 56, Section 57
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8276 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the State-respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayers:- "I. To issue a writ in nature of Certiorari for partially quashing the office order no. 477SA0SU0/2024-43SA0SU0/2013 dated 29.03.2024 (Annexure no.1) and 464SA0SU0/2024-43SAOSU0/2013(vol.-9) dated Bath Commissioner 24.04.2024 (Annexure no.2) of Transport Commissioner, respondent 2.025 no. 2 to the extent of arbitrarily and malafidely withhelding or making katauti of Rs.78,60,260/-( Rupees Seventy Eight Laks Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Only) with GST against three bills petitioner-firm bearing Invoice no.01 dtd. 04.08.2023 (Annexure no.15), Invoice no.02 dtd.06.01.2024 (Annexure no.16) and Invoice no. 03 dtd.08.03.2024 (Annexure no.17) amounting Rs 12,61,892/ with GST, Rs 1,37,35,353/ with GST and Rs 19,45,167/- with GST, respectively preferred by petitioner-firm before respondent no.2&3 for work done by petitioner-firm between period March 2023 till end of February 2024 and refusal for payment of same. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudhir Kumar Pandey, Pradeep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Infrastructure Development Consultants Thru. Authorized Representative Umesh Kumbhalkar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Transport Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
II. To issue a writ order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding to respondent no.2 and 3 to make payment of withheld or katuti amount of Rs.78,60,260/-( Rupees Seventy Eight Laks Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Onlyj with GST against above- mentioned three bills bearing Invoice no.01 dtd. 04.08.2023, Invoice no.02 dtd 06.01.2024 and Invoice no. 03 dtd.08.03.2024 amounting Rs 12,61,892/- with GST, Rs 1,37,35,353/- with GST and Rs 19,45,167/-with GST, respectively, within stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble Court III. To issue a writ order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding to respondent no.2 and 3 to make payment of 4th bill (Annexure No. 3) for work performed petitioner-firm in month of March,2024 (before end of 60 days of termination date on 28.05.2024) bearing Invoice-4 dated 22 March 2025 amounting Rs.9,66,025.00(Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Twenty Five only) GST @18% of amounting Rs. 1,73,885.00(Rupees One Laks Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five only) Total Rs 11,39,910/-( Rupees Eleven Laks Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ten only), within stipulated time period fixed by this Hon'ble Court. IV. Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may think fit."
A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel appearing for the State-respondents to the maintainability of the petition and he has pointed out Page no.131 of the Paper book, Clauses 56 and 57 of the Contract signed between the parties. Initially, if a dispute arises in relation to the Contract it shall be tried to be settled amicably through mutual consultation and, in case, such amicable settlement cannot be arrived at then under Paragraph-57.1 of the Contract arbitration as provided under the Special Conditions of Contract shall be undertaken between the parties.
The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya others, Writ-C No.27869 of 2021 decided on 06.01.2022. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a letter dated 12.06.2025 written by the petitioner to the Transport Commissioner asking for the reasons of making deductions in the payment due to it. It has been submitted that till date no reply has been given to the petitioner. He does not know what is the reason for such deductions and therefore cannot apply under Paragraph-56 of the Contract signed by him.
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Transport Commissioner to take into consideration the letter of the petitioner dated 12.06.2025 and inform the petitioner about discrepancies, if any, found in the performance of Contract within a period of four weeks' from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Such letter shall contain detailed reasons for coming to such conclusions that deductions are necessary in the bills of the petitioner. August 28, 2025 N.PAL (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.