CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ravi Pal Singh Saini vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 16 June 2025 · Citation: (2025) 06 UK CK 0501

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 1699 Of 2025 (M/S)
Ask AI about this case

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

10 paragraphs · 335 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The case of the petitioner is that he is a contractor and proprietor of the firm M/s Saini Construction. He was assigned different repairing works of Tatbandh (pier) in the year, 2016 - 2017. He completed his work. But, the respondent no.4 has not paid his dues. He moved a representation dated 11.01.2021 before the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division-V Haridwar, District Haridwar, the respondent no.4. The said representation is still pending. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to forthwith make payment of the petitioner in lieu of the bills raised by petitioner for different repairing works of Balawali to Khanpur Tatbandh (the pier) successfully completed by the petitioner.

(II) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(III) Award cost of the petition. ”

2.

Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3.

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has requested to decide the present writ petition directing the respondent no.4 to decide the said representation as expeditiously as possible.

4.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Advocate has sought six weeks’ time for the respondent no.4 to decide the said representation dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure No.2 to the Writ Petition).

5.

On the request of both the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no. 4 to decide the said representation dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure No.2 to the Writ Petition), submitted by the petitioner, according to law and as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks’ from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

6.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.