M/S Dinesh Kumar Contractor, Pratapgarh Thru. Its Prop. Dinesh Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Public Works , Lko. And 3 Others

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh, detailed representation to respondent no. 3, the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Pratapgarh, outlining all grievances and attaching supporting documents within two weeks. Respondent no. 3 was directed to consider and decide this representation in accordance with the law, by a reasoned and speaking order, within two months of receiving the representation and a certified copy of the Court's order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not applied itself to the merits of the case and all questions remained open for the competent authority to decide. The ratio decidendi is that when a party seeks a direction for payment and the opposing party has no objection to a time-bound consideration of representation, the Court may direct the authority to consider and decide the representation, leaving the merits to be decided by the authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dinesh Kumar Contractor, through its proprietor Dinesh Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Pratapgarh (respondent no. 3) to pay an additional 6% GST concerning two contract bonds: No. 09/S.E./P.F. Circle/2022-23 dated June 20, 2022, and No. 101/S.E./P.F. Circle/2022-23 dated November 23, 2022. The petitioner contended that their grievance would be substantially addressed if their representation for payment was considered and decided promptly. The State-respondents, through the Chief Standing Counsel, had no objection to this approach.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ in the nature of Mandamus should be issued directing the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Pratapgarh, to pay the 6% additional GST on the specified contract bonds to the petitioner? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought a direction for payment of the additional GST, arguing that their grievance would be substantially met if their representation was considered and decided within a stipulated time. No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited in the judgment for the petitioner's claim. Revenue/State's Argument: The learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents stated that they had no objection to the petitioner's request for a time-bound consideration of their representation.