Murari Upadhyay vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition without entering into the merits of the case. The Court directed respondent no. 3 (implicitly, Poorvanchal Electric Distribution Corporation Limited) to take remedial measures in light of the representation dated October 18, 2021. This was to be done by passing a speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a true attested copy of the Court's order along with a photocopy of the representation. The Court did not decide on the quantum of the amount due or the applicability of GST, as it disposed of the petition based on the statements made by the respondents' counsel and the need for a formal decision by the concerned authority.

Facts

The petitioner, Murari Upadhyay, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the respondents to pay a balance amount of Rs. 17,21,112/- plus GST. This amount was due for works successfully executed by the petitioner. The petitioner relied on a communication dated October 18, 2021, between the Chief Engineer, U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Limited, and the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Energy, U.P. Government. This communication acknowledged that a balance of Rs. 27.20 lakhs would be released to the petitioner once funds were available from Poorvanchal Electric Distribution Corporation Limited, Varanasi. The counsel for Poorvanchal Electric Distribution Corporation Limited stated that the petitioner's grievance would be examined and efforts made for redressal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a mandamus directing the respondents to pay the outstanding balance of Rs. 17,21,112/- plus GST to the petitioner for works executed. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a specific amount was due for completed work and relied on an official communication acknowledging this liability and outlining a potential release of funds. The petitioner sought enforcement of this acknowledged debt. Respondent's contention: The counsel for Poorvanchal Electric Distribution Corporation Limited stated that the petitioner's grievance would be examined and efforts would be made to provide suitable redressal. No specific legal arguments were presented by the respondents regarding the validity of the claim or the applicability of GST provisions.