AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 194 wordsK. Kannan, J.—Written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 is taken on record.
The writ petition seeks for a mandamus to the respondents to take the final decision regarding release of pending service charges to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot have an adjudication before this Court for pure contractual obligation with the State and if the contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is not denying the entitlement, it is open to the petitioner to secure the amount from the respondents. The petitioner will have cause of action even to come this Court if it is an undisputed claim for the petitioner. If the respondents are not prepared to release the amount, the petitioner''s remedy shall be to seek for a reference to arbitration contemplated in the manner. However, I am still issuing a direction for a decision to be taken regarding the petitioner''s claim for payment within a period of 2 weeks from today and the State shall communicate the decision within time as prescribed. The etitioner''s remedy will henceforth get crystalized for enforcement in the manner know to law.
The writ petition is disposed of.