M/S Aishani Power Supply PVT. LTD. vs. State Of U.P. & 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aishani Power Supply Pvt. Ltd., has approached the High Court with a grievance that the respondent-authority has failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 4,14,521.50, along with GST interest, for contract work related to electricity articles. The petitioner had submitted multiple representations to the respondent-authority detailing these grievances, but no action was taken. The respondent's counsel acknowledged that keeping the writ petition pending would serve no useful purpose and suggested that an appropriate direction be issued to respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioner's grievance.

Held

The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh representation, along with a certified copy of the Court's order, detailing all grievances before respondent no. 3, the Executive Engineer Mandal-IIIrd, Kanpur Electricity Supply Officer House (KESKO), Kanpur Nagar. This representation must be filed within one month from the date of the order. Respondent no. 3 is directed to consider and decide this representation strictly in accordance with law within two months of its receipt. If respondent no. 3 believes another authority is competent to decide the claim, the matter should be referred to that authority, which must then decide the claim strictly in accordance with law within the same two-month period. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must address grievances within their purview promptly and in accordance with law, and where a party has exhausted administrative remedies without resolution, the High Court can direct such consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent-authority has failed to discharge its obligation to pay the outstanding amount and GST interest to the petitioner for the completed contract work, and if so, what is the appropriate course of action? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning contractual obligations and payment under GST law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent-authority is in default of payment of the remaining contract amount and applicable GST interest, despite repeated representations. The petitioner sought intervention from the Court to secure the payment. Respondent's contention: The respondent did not contest the facts presented by the petitioner. Instead, the counsel for the respondents submitted that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and suggested that a direction be issued to respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioner's grievance.