M/S Gandotra Builders vs. The Punjab Urban Planning And Developers Authority And Ors

Held

The Court, with the consent of both parties and without commenting on the merits of the case, disposed of the petition. It directed Respondent No. 4, The Divisional Engineer (PH), PUDA Jalandhar Development Authority, Jalandhar, to consider and decide the legal notice dated 02.09.2024. This decision was to be made by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, within a period of three months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Court further stipulated that if any amount was found due and payable to the petitioner upon consideration of the legal notice, it should be disbursed within a further period of three months. In the event of non-payment within this extended period, the dues would be released along with interest at 6% per annum, and an additional cost of Rs. 50,000/- would be payable to the Poor Patient Welfare Fund (PPWF) of PGIMER, Chandigarh. This additional financial liability was subject to recovery from the erring official.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Gandotra Builders, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the release of balance payment amounting to Rs. 15,03,463/-. This amount included security, bank guarantee, and the difference in GST for works executed. The petitioner had previously served a legal notice dated 02.09.2024 to the respondents, but no action was taken, and the outstanding dues remained unpaid. The respondents, represented by Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate, accepted notice and sought time to file a response. The petitioner's counsel then submitted that they would be satisfied if Respondent No. 4, The Divisional Engineer (PH), PUDA Jalandhar Development Authority, Jalandhar, was directed to consider and decide the legal notice by passing a speaking order within a specified timeframe.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 4 should be directed to consider and decide the legal notice dated 02.09.2024 served by the petitioner, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound manner, as per the petitioner's prayer? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they had served a legal notice regarding outstanding dues and GST differences, but the respondents had neither paid the dues nor acted upon the notice. Therefore, the court should direct Respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the legal notice by passing a speaking order in a time-bound manner. Respondents' Argument: The respondents' counsel had no objection to the petitioner's request for a direction to consider and decide the legal notice.