# Awadhesh Narayan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 105
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 16026 of 2015
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/awadhesh-narayan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44325
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ of mandamus - Contract by a
statutory body - Scope of interference -
Non-payment of amount due in respect of
civil work performed by a contractor -
Maintainability of writ petition - Public
law and private law, how far relevance -
Held, the fact that one of the parties to
the agreement is a statutory or public
body will not by itself affect the principles
to be applied - The disputes about the
meaning of a covenant in a contract or its
enforceability have to be determined
according to the usual principles of the
Contract Act - Statutory bodies have
power to contract or deal with property
like private parties. Such activities may
not raise any issue of public law. When it
is not shown that contract is statutory and
parties are within the realm of their
authority, contract between the parties is
in the realm of private law - The disputes
relating to interpretation of terms and
conditions of such contract cannot be
agitated in a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution. (Para 6)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

7 All. Awadhesh Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
105
the petitioner-Company is guilty of the
charges levelled against it.

8. In the above backdrop, even if the
petitioner offers its explanation, it would be
an empty formality and a futile exercise.
Fairness demanded that the respondent
should have taken care to keep their mind
open to the issues while seeking the
explanation. The respondent-Corporation
having already held that the explanation is
not worthy of acceptance, it could not be
treated to be a show cause notice but a
decision already taken. We accordingly
quash the impugned notice leaving it open
to the respondent-Corporation to issue fresh
notice in accordance with law, if so
advised.

9. The petition stands allowed to the
extent indicated above.
----------
(2022)07ILR A105
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 16026 of 2015

Awadhesh Narayan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.P.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., S. Tiwari

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ of mandamus - Contract by a
statutory body - Scope of interference -
Non-payment of amount due in respect of
civil work performed by a contractor -
Maintainability of writ petition - Public
law and private law, how far relevance -
Held, the fact that one of the parties to
the agreement is a statutory or public
body will not by itself affect the principles
to be applied - The disputes about the
meaning of a covenant in a contract or its
enforceability have to be determined
according to the usual principles of the
Contract Act - Statutory bodies have
power to contract or deal with property
like private parties. Such activities may
not raise any issue of public law. When it
is not shown that contract is statutory and
parties are within the realm of their
authority, contract between the parties is
in the realm of private law - The disputes
relating to interpretation of terms and
conditions of such contract cannot be
agitated in a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution. (Para 6)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. F.C.I. & anr. Vs M/s Seil Ltd. & ors.; AIR 2008
SC 1101
2. M/s Chitra Gupta Trading Vs U.P. Public
Works Department & ors.; 2010(5) ADJ 299
(DB)
3. Writ Petition No. 41238 of 2013; M/s
Pratiksha Constructions Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
decided on 11.02.2015
4. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & anr. Vs
Dolly Das; 1999 (4) SCC 450
5. Kerala State Electricity Board & anr. Vs Kurien
E. Kalathil & ors.; 2000 (6) SCC 293
6. Writ C No. 25075 of 2014; M/S Prabhu
Construction Comp.through its Proprietor Vs St.
of U.P. & anr. decided on 05.05.2014
7. Writ C No. 11544 of 2014; M/s R.S. Assc. Vs
St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 24.02.2014
8. Alaska Tech Vs St. of U.P.; 2014 (6) ADJ 591
9. Misc. Bench No. 10971 of 2015; M/S Goyal
Stationary Mart through its Proprietor State of
U.P. decided on 27.11.2015
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. Budh Gramin Sansthan Vs St. of U.P.; 2014
(7) ADJ 29
11. Kaka Advertising Agency Vs U.P. Technical
University & ors.; 2014 (11) ADJ 227
12. Misc. Bench No. 1909 of 2014; M/s A.K.
Constructions Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on
07.03.2014
13. Misc. Bench No. 3472 of 2014; Major
Travels through Proprietor Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
decided on 25.04.2014
14. Misc. Bench No. 3898 of 2015; Uttaranchal
Paper
Converters
&
Publishers
through
Proprietor Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on
13.05.2014
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner
and perused the record.

2. Petitioner is a Contractor and claimed
to have executed some civil work in respect
whereto payment has not been made. It is
stated that amount is not disputed, therefore,
writ petition is maintainable and reliance is
placed on Food Corporation of India and
another Vs. M/s Seil Ltd. and others, AIR
2008 SC 1101; M/s Chitra Gupta Trading
vs. U.P. Public Works Department and
others, 2010(5) ADJ 299 (DB); and, M/s
Pratiksha Constructions Vs. State of U.P.
and others (Writ Petition No. 41238 of
2013), decided on 11.02.2015.

3. However, we do not find that
aforesaid authorities help petitioner in the
present matter. In Food Corporation of
India (supra) dispute relates to supply of
levy sugar pursuant to Government orders
which
was
governed
by
Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred
to as the "Act, 1955"). Under Section 3(2)(f)
of Act, 1955 Central Government is
empowered to direct any manufacturer of
sugar to sell sugar to Central Government or
State Government or a body owned or
controlled by them for the purpose of making
it available to public at fair price. This sugar
is known commonly as levy sugar. Price of
such levy sugar was fixed by Central
Government in exercise of statutory power
conferred under Section 3(3C) of Act, 1955
on yearly basis. Price of levy sugar although
is required to be notified when sugar year
commences but their exist a practice to notify
previous year's price as a levy sugar on an ad
hoc basis in October and final price used to
be notified later on. Pursuant to such
directions and notifications issued by Central
Government under the provisions of Act,
1955 respondents Sugar Company supplied
levy
sugar
to
agencies
of
Central
Government, i.e., Food Corporation of India
as also UPPCF. The sugar mill demanded
price of levy sugar from both, Food
Corporation of India as also Directorate of
Sugar, Ministry of Food. It is this non
payment of price of levy sugar which caused
sugar mill to approach Delhi High Court by
filing writ petition. In respect of supply made
to Central Government, Delhi High Court
held that direction for making payment
should be made but in respect of supply of
levy sugar made to other agencies it was held
that such direction is impermissible and
remedy lies in common law. When matter
came to Supreme Court it was held that
supply of sugar was made in terms of
statutory order as also on the directions made
by Central Government and there is no
factual dispute. Court held that contractual
disputes involving public law elements are
amenable to writ jurisdiction.

4. In other two judgments of this
Court, i.e., M/s Chitra Gupta Trading
(supra) and M/s Pratiksha Constructions
(supra) directions for payment were issued
7 All. Awadhesh Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
107
but question as to whether writ petition is
maintainable or not as such was not an
issue raised, argued and decided.

5. This question has been considered
specifically
in
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Limited and another Vs.
Dolly Das 1999 (4) SCC 450 wherein
Court said that in absence of any
constitutional or statutory rights being
involved, a writ proceeding would not lie to
enforce contractual obligations even if it is
sought to be enforced against State or to
avoid contractual liability arising thereto.
In the absence of any statutory right,
Article 226 cannot be availed to claim any
money in respect of breach of contract or
tort or otherwise.

6. In Kerala State Electricity Board
and another Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and
others 2000 (6) SCC 293, Court said that
interpretation and implementation of a
clause in a contract cannot be subjectmatter of a writ petition. Whether a contract
envisages actual payment or not is a
question of construction of contract. If a
term of contract is violated, ordinarily
remedy is not the writ petition under Article
226. A contract would not become statutory
simply because it is for construction of a
public utility and it has been awarded by a
statutory body. A statute may expressly or
impliedly confer power on a statutory body
to enter into contracts in order to enable it
to discharge its functions. Disputes arising
out of the terms of such contracts or alleged
breaches have to be settled by the ordinary
principles of law of contract. The fact that
one of the parties to the agreement is a
statutory or public body will not by itself
affect the principles to be applied. The
disputes about the meaning of a covenant in
a contract or its enforceability have to be
determined
according
to
the
usual
principles of the Contract Act. Every act of
a statutory body need not necessarily
involve an exercise of statutory power.
Statutory bodies have power to contract or
deal with property like private parties. Such
activities may not raise any issue of public
law. When it is not shown that contract is
statutory and parties are within the realm of
their authority, contract between the parties
is in the realm of private law. The disputes
relating to interpretation of terms and
conditions of such contract cannot be
agitated in a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution. The Court further said:

"That
is
a
matter
for
adjudication by a civil court or in
arbitration if provided for in the contract.
Whether any amount is due and if so, how
much and refusal of the appellant to pay
it is justified or not, are not the matters
which could have been agitated and
decided in a writ petition."

7. Following the above authorities, a
Division Bench of this Court in M/S
Prabhu Construction Company through
its Proprietor Vs. State of U.P. and
another (Writ C No. 25075 of 2014)
decided on 05.05.2014 said as under:

"In the present case, there is
nothing on the record which may persuade
us to hold that the contract is a statutory
contract. The remedy of the contractor, if he
is aggrieved by non-payment, would be to
either file an ordinary civil suit or if there
is an arbitration agreement between the
parties, to invoke the terms of the
agreement."

8. The Court also relied on its earlier
decision in M/s R.S. Associate Vs. State of
U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 11544 of
2014) decided on 24.02.2014.
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Again in Alaska Tech Vs. State of
U.P. 2014 (6) ADJ 591, a Division Bench
of this Court observed as under:

"2. We are of the view that, in a
matter of this nature which pertains to
alleged non-payment of dues under a
contract for supply of goods, it would neither
be prudent nor judicious for this Court, in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution, to grant relief, which is in
substance, is a prayer for a money decree.
These matters, it must be emphasized, are not
those relating to statutory contracts but are
purely non-statutory contracts. Whether work
has been satisfactorily performed, whether
the rates which had been quoted are in
accordance with the terms of the contract,
whether the goods were of a quality as
mandated, and above all, whether the claim
is within limitation or otherwise, are issues
which cannot appropriately be adjudicated
upon under Article 226 of the Constitution."

10. The same view has been reiterated
in M/S Goyal Stationary Mart through its
Proprietor State of U.P. (Misc. Bench No.
10971 of 2015) decided on 27.11.2015; Budh
Gramin Sansthan Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (7)
ADJ 29; Kaka Advertising Agency Vs. U.P.
Technical University and others 2014 (11)
ADJ 227; M/s A.K. Constructions Vs. State
of U.P. and others (Misc. Bench No. 1909
of 2014) decided on 07.03.2014; Major
Travels through Proprietor Vs. State of
U.P. and others (Misc. Bench No. 3472 of
2014)
decided
on
25.04.2014;
and
Uttaranchal
Paper
Converters
and
Publishers through Proprietor Vs. State of
U.P. and others (Misc. Bench No. 3898 of
2015) decided on 13.05.2014.

11. In view thereof, we are clearly of
the view that mandamus sought by
petitioner
cannot
be
granted
in
extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. Dismissed. Interim order, if any,
stands vacated.
----------
(2022)07ILR A108
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 16056 of 2021

Rashmi Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Yogeshwar Sharan
Srivasta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Akhilesh
Kumar
Srivastava,
Gyanendra Kr. Srivastava, Prashant Kumar
Tripathi

A. Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a)
- Fundamental right to change the name -
Intent to change the name was declared
by making publication
- Name was
changed in Aadhar Card as well as in PAN
also,
however,
the
application
for
changing
the
name
in
Education
certificate was rejected on the ground
that it was made beyond the prescribed
limitation provided under Regulation 7 of
the
Regulations
framed
under
the
Intermediate
Education
Act
1921
-
Validity challenged - Held, right to change
the name is a facet of fundamental right
as guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of
the Constitution of India - Kabir Jaiswal's
case and Jigya Yadav's case relied upon -
The foundation based upon which the
impugned
orders
have
been
passed
namely that the request was made beyond