M/S Ankit Enterprises vs. Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited And 4 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ankit Enterprises, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondent no. 2 (Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited) to pay bills totaling Rs. 12,66,199/- (inclusive of GST) for the period from June 2023 to March 2024, along with interest, as per several agreements dated 22.8.2023. The petitioner's counsel argued the matter, and the respondents were represented. The Court noted that the decision to make payment was to be taken by respondent no. 3, and no such decision had been made by that authority to date. The Court considered that keeping the petition pending or calling for a counter-affidavit would serve no useful purpose at this stage.

Held

The Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending or calling for a counter-affidavit at this stage, as the decision to make payment had not yet been taken by the competent authority, respondent no. 3. The Court did not delve into the merits of the GST amount or the contractual obligations concerning payment. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory or administrative authority has not yet taken a decision, and the matter involves contractual payments, the High Court may direct the authority to consider and decide the issue within a stipulated timeframe, rather than issuing a mandamus for payment directly. The operative directions were to dispose of the writ petition with a direction for the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent no. 3 and the Executive Engineer E.D.D.-I and II, supported by a personal affidavit and relevant documents, or upload the bills on the designated web portal. This representation is to be decided strictly in accordance with law within two months of filing. Any amount found due should be paid within a further two months.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing respondent no. 2 to make payment of bills for the period June 2023 to March 2024, amounting to Rs. 12,66,199/- (inclusive of GST), along with interest, under specific agreements. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for payment of outstanding bills as per the contractual agreements, implying a right to receive such payment. The petitioner relied on the existence of the agreements and the undisputed period of service for which bills were raised. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondents regarding the payment of bills or the legal basis for withholding it. The Court's observation that the decision rests with respondent no. 3 suggests a procedural or administrative bottleneck rather than a dispute over the tax liability itself.