Bal Mukund Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of U.P. The direction was to take all remedial measures to ensure that the necessary payment is made to the petitioner expeditiously. The Court specified a timeframe for this payment, stating it should preferably be made within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not explicitly address the specific components of the payment sought by the petitioner, such as retention money, revised GST at 18%, or interest, but rather directed the overall payment of outstanding dues. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Bal Mukund Tiwari, was awarded a contract for the construction of a helipad and other miscellaneous work for the proposed arrival of the Prime Minister of India at Aligarh. The agreement was entered into with respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner completed the work within the stipulated time. The Executive Engineer prepared a bill for Rs. 49,94,061/-. Despite the completion of the work, payment was not made, leading the petitioner to file a previous writ petition (Writ-C No. 21373 of 2023). That petition was disposed of on July 21, 2023, with a direction to the Chief Engineer to dispose of the petitioner's application expeditiously. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application, and the Chief Engineer, by an order dated August 18, 2023, admitted the liability and stated that funds were being requisitioned from the government for payment. However, the petitioner's grievance remained unredressed, prompting the filing of the present writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are liable to make immediate payment of outstanding dues, including retention money, revised GST at 18%, and interest on the contract price, to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, concerning contract law and payment obligations). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the respondents had entered into an agreement for construction work, which was completed satisfactorily. The respondents, through the Chief Engineer, had admitted the liability and indicated that payment would be made after receiving funds. Despite this, the respondents have failed to make the payment, causing undue hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the respondents to act immediately for the payment of outstanding dues, retention money, revised GST, and interest. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State respondents regarding their contentions against the petitioner's claims. The State was represented by the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.