M/S Parikshit Nirmanak Contractor Saklenabad vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court, considering the facts and circumstances, was not inclined to keep the writ petition pending. On consent, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the second respondent to take a final call in compliance with the order dated 20.11.2023 within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The Court warned that failure to comply would entitle the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the second respondent. The Court did not make a specific finding on the entitlement to GST or interest, but rather directed the final decision on the pending bill. The issue of the exact amount of GST and interest payable was not expressly decided, but the direction to release the pending bill implies a decision on the underlying claim.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Parikshit Nirmanak Contractor Saklenabad, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the respondents to release a pending bill of Rs. 1,14,39,000/- along with 18% GST, based on a letter dated 6.2.2023. The petitioner also sought interest at 12% per annum from 2020. The petitioner had carried out construction work which was accepted by the respondents, but payment was not made. The Court had previously directed the respondents to seek instructions. On 20.11.2023, the Court noted that the Chief Engineer, Varanasi Area, PWD, Varanasi had sought clarification from the Chief Engineer (Setu), U.P. PWD, Lucknow, and a response was awaited. The petitioner's claim was stated to be processed and pending financial approval. On 12.12.2023, the respondents indicated that instructions were still awaited.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus commanding the respondents to release the pending bill of Rs. 1,14,39,000/- along with 18% GST and interest at 12% per annum from 2020, in light of the accepted construction work. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the construction work had been completed and accepted by the respondents, and therefore, the payment along with GST and interest was due. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Surya Construction vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2019) 16 SCC 794, asserting that their claim should be considered by the competent authority. Respondent's Contention: The respondent stated that the petitioner's claim had been processed, but clarification was sought from another authority, and a response was awaited. They further submitted that the matter was pending financial approval and requested further time to comply with the Court's previous order.