Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner ha prayed for the following relief:

i) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent department to produce the entire documents pertaining to the case of the petitioner since 2002 to 2022.

ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent department within stipulated period 15 days release the payment of Rs.18,10,000/- along with interest 12% per annum from the year 2003 to April 2022.

iii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/direction to the respondent department to pay compensatory cost of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner non-releasing of work completion payment of Rs.18,00,0000/-.

iv) To direct the respondent department to pay the cost of litigation.

v) To grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and necessary may also be granted to the Petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running from pillar to post since the year 2003 seeking payment of Rs.18,10,000/- alongwith interest for the work contract for maintenance of Government residential and non residential buildings. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out Annexure P/6 dated 01.03.2021, whereby it is admitted that the petitioner had undertaken the work of maintenance of the buildings and running bills were also prepared. The Chief Engineer has referred the matter to the Executive Engineer to act according to the inquiry report and as per certified documents. In spite of lapse of 1 and 1/2 year no decision has been taken, therefore, direction may be issued to the respondents to take immediate action to make the payment of the outstanding dues of the petitioner.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the disputed questions of facts are involved in the case. The respondents/ authorities have not come to the conclusion with regard to the amount to be paid. Moreover, in the earlier round of litigation in WP. No.7258/2009 in para 16 of the order, this Court has held as under:

“16. Apart from this, existence of arbitration clause is not in dispute and Section 7 of Adhiniyam of 1983 makes it clear that either party to a works contract shall irrespective of the fact whether the agreement contains an arbitration clause or not, refer in writing the dispute to the Tribunal. As per Section 7 (4) of the Adhiniyam of 1983, the Tribunal is equipped with the power to go through the evidence and record a finding. In view of aforesaid, in absence of conclusive material in support of quantification of amount as claimed by the petitioner, no mandamus can be issued to the respondents. To this extent, no relief is due to the petitioner in the present WP. The petitioner is free to avail the appropriate remedy for quantification and payment of said amount.”

In view of the aforesaid, no such directions can be issued and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents/State as well as in light of the order dated 22.08.2016 passed in W.P. No.7258/2009, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be free to avail the appropriate remedy for quantification and payment of said amount.