M/S Yash Constructions And Suppliers vs. Raipur Smart City Limited

Held

The Court noted that there were no disputed questions of fact. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to immediately consider, scrutinize, and verify the bills raised by the petitioner. This verification was to be done in accordance with the tender documents, specifications, and work order. An appropriate decision was to be taken within 90 days from the receipt of the order. The Court further directed that if no dispute was found regarding the petitioner's claim, the admitted dues should be released forthwith. Additionally, the authorities were directed to consider the refund of the GST amount borne by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Yash Constructions and Suppliers, a Class-A Contractor, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the release of admitted pending dues for work executed for the respondents, Raipur Smart City Limited and its Chief Executive Officer. The petitioner was awarded work orders on May 22, 2017, and July 10, 2017, for the construction of an Oxy Reading Zone with a Library Building and Facility Plaza. The petitioner claims to have completed the work as per specifications and received a completion certificate. Despite the petition being filed in February 2021, the respondents had not filed a reply for approximately 20 months. The petitioner asserted that there were no disputes regarding the work execution, quality, or the raised bills, implying admitted dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents can withhold admitted pending dues of the petitioner for work executed, when no dispute regarding execution, quality, or bills has been raised. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since there has been no dispute raised by the respondents concerning the work execution, its quality, or the bills submitted, the dues are admitted and cannot be withheld. They relied on a previous order of the High Court in WPC No. 619 of 2020, which allowed a similar writ petition. Respondents' contention: The respondents submitted that the petitioner's bills were pending consideration before the concerned authorities. They proposed that the writ petition could be disposed of by directing the authorities to scrutinize the bills in accordance with the work order and tender documents, and to finalize them at the earliest after due verification.