Allahabad High Court
M/S TRIDEV INTERPRISESversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner's representation under the contract must be considered and the writ petition is disposed of.
Summary
The petitioner, M/s Tridev Enterprises, entered into an agreement with the State of U.P. to capture stray animals on the Bundelkhand Expressway and subsequently claimed Rs.89,17,448. When the amount was not paid, the petitioner filed a writ petition and also submitted a representation on 5 June 2026 to the Chief Executive Officer of the U.P. Expressway Industrial Development Authority, as required by the agreement's dispute‑resolution clause. The Court noted that the agreement provides for an amicable settlement mechanism and that the petitioner had already complied by filing the representation. Without delving into the merits of the claim, the Court directed that the representation be considered and decided within two weeks of the certified copy of the order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for adjudicating the petitioner's claim under the contract's dispute‑resolution mechanism?
- Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner has already submitted a representation as per the agreement?
Subjects
- contract
- dispute resolution clause
- writ petition
- expressway
- representation
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 37385 of 2026
M/S Tridev Interprises
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jai Bahadur Singh
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. The petitioner had entered into an agreement to catch stray animals on
the Bundelkhand Expressway and thereafter it raised a claim of
Rs.89,17,448/-. When the said amount was not paid, the petitioner
submitted a representation on 05.06.2026. As per the agreement, the
dispute could be resolved amicably through the dispute resolution
mechanism provided in the agreement itself.
2. Without entering into the merits of the case, we are of the view that
since the petitioner has already submitted a representation before the
respondent - Chief Executive Officer, U.P. Expressway Industrial
Development Authority, the said representation be considered and
decided in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the
date of production of a certified copy of this order.
3. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 17, 2026
NLY
Digitally signed by :-
NAND LAL YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…