Allahabad High Court
M/S H.R. CONSTRUCTION COMPANYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is disposed with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Executive Engineer, who must decide it within one month.
Summary
M/s H.R. Construction Company, a contractor engaged in electrical distribution works, filed a writ petition seeking release of a payment of Rs.1,95,998 plus GST that it alleges the respondent authority has withheld despite multiple representations. The respondents argued that the petition need not be kept pending and suggested that the petitioner approach the Executive Engineer of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. The High Court, without examining the merits, disposed of the petition and directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation, along with a certified copy of the order, to the respondent within one month. The court further directed the respondent to consider and decide the fresh representation within one month of receipt. The order thus provides a procedural remedy rather than adjudicating the substantive claim for payment.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy for a contractor whose payment claim has been allegedly withheld by a public authority?
Subjects
- payment of dues
- contractor
- electricity distribution
- writ petition
- public authority
- representation
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 9255 of 2026
M/S H.R. Construction Company
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bashisth Narain Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shrawan Kumar Tripathi
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondent and Sri Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for
respondent nos.2 to 7.
2. The petitioner is a registered contractor firm engaged in the business of
electrical distribution works including installation of transformers etc. The
grievance of the petitioner is that respondent-authority is not releasing the
payment of Rs.1,95,998/- alongwith applicable GST to petitioner despite the
fact that petitioner has submitted several representations to the respondent-
authority in this regard, but till date no action has been taken on the same.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no useful purpose would
be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may
be issued to the respondent no.6 to consider the grievance of the petitioner.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without adverting
into the merits of the case, we dispose off the writ petition permitting the
petitioner to file a fresh representation alongwith certified copy of this order
raising all his grievances before the respondent no.6-Executive Engineer,
Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Electricity Distribution Division
Siddhartha Nagar, District Siddhartha Nagar within a period of one month
from today. In case, any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the
respondent no.6 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law
within a period of one month from the date he receives the representation of
the petitioner.
March 19, 2026
Sattyarth
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SATTYARTH ANAND
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…