M/S Upkar Construcion vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Held
The Court held that since the Executive Engineer, Urban Administration, Indore Division, had made a recommendation for payment and the amount in dispute was not contested, the writ petition could be disposed of with a direction. The Court directed the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nepa Nagar, District Burhanpur, to comply with the letter dated 16.04.2024 and make the payment of arrears to the petitioner. This direction was to be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, provided there was no other impediment to clearing the amount. The ratio of this decision is that High Courts can direct public authorities to make undisputed payments based on official recommendations within a stipulated timeframe, absent any legal hindrances.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Upkar Construction, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for payment of Rs. 2,15,832/- plus GST. The petitioner had completed RCC work in Ward No. 10 of a drain for the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nepa Nagar, District Burhanpur. The Executive Engineer, Urban Administration and Development, Indore Division, had recommended the payment. Despite this recommendation, the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO) of Nagar Palika Parishad, Nepa Nagar, had not made the payment. The State, through its Government Advocate, acknowledged that the CMO was responsible for making the payment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should issue a direction to the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nepa Nagar, District Burhanpur, to make payment of Rs. 2,15,832/- + GST to the petitioner, as per the recommendation of the Executive Engineer, Urban Administration and Development, Indore Division, considering the amount is undisputed? (Question of law and fact, concerning the enforcement of contractual obligations and administrative directions). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the facts are not disputed and that a direction should be issued to the CMO to make the payment, as recommended by the Executive Engineer. The petitioner relied on the fact that the amount is undisputed and that the recommendation for payment has been made. Revenue/State's contention: The Government Advocate for the State submitted that the CMO is indeed the authority responsible for making the payment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making prayer to give direction to respondents to make payment of Rs.2,15,832/- + GST.
Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that facts in this petition are not disputed. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nepa Nagar, District Burhanpur is to make payment of Rs.2,15,832/- + GST in respect of RCC work done in Ward No.10 of a drain. Recommendation has also been made by Executive Engineer, Urban Administration and Development, Indore Division for making payment, but payment has not been made. It is submitted that direction may be given to CMO, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nepa Nagar, District Burhanpur to make payment.
Government Advocate appearing for State submitted that CMO has to make payment.
Heard the counsel for the parties. 1
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.