Maa Vindhyavsini Parmeshwar vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to file a certified copy of the order to respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 was then directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-7) within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Therefore, the primary decision was to direct the respondent authority to decide the pending representation expeditiously, without adjudicating on the claim for outstanding dues or the GST amount. The issue regarding the settlement of dues was not decided on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Maa Vindhyavsini Parmeshwar, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct respondent No. 5 to settle outstanding dues of Rs. 09,69,727.5/- along with 18% GST. The petitioner had completed a work order dated 10.06.2023, and a completion certificate was issued by the respondents on 28.04.2024. Following this, the petitioner demanded the outstanding dues and filed a representation dated 15.11.2025 (Annexure P-6) before respondent No. 5, which remained undecided. The petitioner also sought a direction for respondent No. 5 to decide this pending representation expeditiously. The State, represented by the Government Advocate, had no objection to the limited prayer made by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent No. 5 to settle the outstanding dues of Rs. 09,69,727.5/- along with 18% GST, which the petitioner claims were approved by the authorities. The petitioner argued that the authorities had already approved the valuation and outstanding dues. 2. Whether the Court should issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct respondent No. 5 to decide the pending representation dated 15.11.2025. The petitioner contended that their representation, filed after the completion of work and issuance of a completion certificate, was pending consideration and had not been decided by the respondent authorities. The respondents/State stated they had no objection to the petitioner's prayer for a direction to decide the representation.