AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard Sri Sanjeev Singh learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.K. Awasthi learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.
Though the list has been revised but learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 is not present. Earlier also, an illness slip had been sent by him and, therefore, we have taken up this matter for final disposal.
The petitioners are contractors. According to the writ petition an Amount of Rs. 1,93,231.48 is due to the petitioner No. I and an amount of Rs. 77,120.55 is due to the petitioner No. 2. In paragraphs 8 and 10 of the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 it has been stated that the amount is due to the petitioners No. 1 and 2 but due to paucityof the fund, the amount could not be paid to them. The respondents have annexed photostat copy of the latest account position of the petitioners as Annexure CA1 to the counteraffidavit. It shows that total amount due to petitioner No. 1 was Rs. 1,88,475 and to the petitioner No. 2 was Rs. 77,120. The chart appended to the counteraffidavit as Annexure CA1 is extracted below:
From the aforesaid chart it is clear that the liability for payment of the aforesaid amount to the petitioners is admitted by the respondent No 1. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for payments as claimed by them.
In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay the amount of Rs. 1,88,475 to petitioner No. 1 and Rs..77,120 to the petitioner No. 2 within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 1.