# Kanika Construction, Meerut v. State of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 982
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-22
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 27869 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kanika-construction-meerut-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48348
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.

A. Maintainability of a writ petition in
contractual
matters
where
monetary
claims are sought to be raised.- Where the
instrumentalities of the State act unfairly,
unjustifiably, unreasonably or arbitrarily in
discharge of contractual obligations, the same
would be held to be violative of Article 14 and
the aggrieved party cannot be precluded from
invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India nor the court would
be denuded of its power of granting proper
reliefs.

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Department, U.P. Government, Lucknow
has been passed despite inherent lack of
jurisdiction and is a nullity in the eyes of
law.

25. In the wake of preceding
discussions,
the
impugned
order
22.06.2021 is vitiated. The impugned order
dated 22.06.2021 passed by the learned
appellate
authority/
Joint
Secretary,
Cooperative
Department,
U.P.
Government, Lucknow is liable to be set
aside and is set aside.

26. The writ petition is allowed.

27. It is open to the respondents to
avail any other alternative remedy as may
be advised in law.
----------
(2022)03ILR A982
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 27869 of 2021

Kanika Construction, Meerut ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nipun Singh, Sri Jitendra Kumar, Sri
Vikas Tripathi, Sri Vivek Chaubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Maintainability of a writ petition in
contractual
matters
where
monetary
claims are sought to be raised.- Where the
instrumentalities of the State act unfairly,
unjustifiably, unreasonably or arbitrarily in
discharge of contractual obligations, the same
would be held to be violative of Article 14 and
the aggrieved party cannot be precluded from
invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India nor the court would
be denuded of its power of granting proper
reliefs.

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-
1. M/S Bio Tech Systems Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2020 (11) ADJ 488 (DB)

2. ABL International Ltd. & anr. Vs Export
Credit Guarantee Corp. of India Ltd. & ors.,
(2004) 3 SCC 553

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed
seeking a direction to the Respondent no.2
for payment of an amount which is stated
to be due and admitted.

3. Pleadings in the petition indicate
that in pursuance of certain advertisement
inviting tenders for running community
kitchen at Baijal Bhawan, Meerut and
Olivia
Hotel,
Meerut,
the
petitioner
company submitted its offer. It was duly
accepted and in pursuance thereof, it
provided the service of community kitchen
at above two places during COVID period.
By letter dated 4.6.2020, Respondent no.4
directed
the
petitioner
to
close
the
community kitchen w.e.f. 6.6.2020. A three
member Committee had duly verified the
quality and quantity of food packets
supplied by the petitioner in pursuance of
3 All. Kanika Construction, Meerut Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
983
the contract. The petitioner has been paid
certain sum under the contract, but the
entire amount has not been paid on account
of paucity of funds.

4. The petitioner has placed on
record an order dated 5.3.2021 issued by
A.D.M. Finance & Revenue, Meerut in
which it is recorded that on basis of
recommendation of the Committee and
the approval granted by the District
Magistrate, Meerut on 4.3.2021, the
amount of Rs. 3,68,81,217/- received
from the Government shall be disbursed
amongst various service providers on
pro-rata basis. The order itself records
that the remaining amount would be paid
after release of more funds from the
Government. A chart which is part of the
said order reveals that in respect of the
petitioner, the remaining sum is Rs.
37,32,072/-. Since, the amount has not
been paid to the petitioner despite
repeated reminders, the instant petition
has been filed for a mandamus to
Respondent no. 2 to pay the remaining
amount forthwith.

5. On 26.11.2021, a Coordinate
Bench passed the following order:-

"Services
of
petitioner
were
requisitioned to meet out the sudden
difficulties occurred due to Covid-19
pandemic.
Such
services
were
duly
provided, and as per Annexure-8 to the writ
petition the admitted dues payable to
petitioner
stands
quantified
at
Rs.37,32,072/-. However, only the part of
the amount has been paid on pro-rata basis
depending upon the funds available.
Remaining amount has been withheld due
to non-availability of funds. Grievance of
the petitioner is that though sufficient time
has elapsed but the admitted dues have not
been released, so far.

In the facts of the case, it would
be appropriate to direct the second
respondent to examine the petitioner's
grievance and file an affidavit clearly
disclosing as to how much time would be
required to release the dues to the
petitioner, by the next date fixed.

Post this matter as fresh, once
again, on 15th December, 2021."

6. On 15.12.2021, the matter was
again adjourned to enable the competent
authority
to
examine
the
petitioner's
grievance and take necessary action.

7. Learned Standing Counsel is in
receipt of instructions from the State
Respondents in which the same stand has
been taken i.e. as soon as the funds are
received from the State Government,
payment shall be made.

8. The question whether a writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India is maintainable to
enforce a contractual obligation against
the State or its instrumentalities, by a
aggrieved party, is no longer res integra.
The
law
with
regard
to
the
maintainability of a writ petition in
contractual matters is fairly well settled.
It has been consistently held that there is
no absolute bar to the maintainability of a
writ petition in such matters. The
discretionary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India may,
however, be refused in case of money
claims arising out of purely contractual
obligations where there are serious
disputed questions of fact with regard to
the claims sought to be raised.
984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. The legal position with regard to
entertainability of a writ petition in
contractual matters where monetary claims
are sought to be raised has been considered
in extenso in a recent decision of this court
in M/S Bio Tech Systems vs. State of U.P.
and Ors.1 and it was held that in a case
where the contract entered into between the
State and the person aggrieved is of a nonstatutory character and the relationship is
governed purely in terms of a contract
between the parties, in such situations the
contractual obligations are matters of
private law and a writ would not lie to
enforce a civil liability arising purely out of
a contract, and the proper remedy in such
cases would be to file a civil suit for
claiming damages, injunctions or specific
performance or such appropriate reliefs in a
civil court.

10. While stating the aforementioned
broad proposition of law in M/S Bio Tech
Systems (supra), it was also added that it
cannot be held in absolute terms that a writ
petition
is
not
maintainable
in
all
contractual matters seeking enforcement of
obligations on part of the State or its
authorities. The limitation in exercising
powers under Article 226 in contractual
matters is essentially a self-imposed
restriction. A case where the amount is
admitted and there is no disputed question
of fact requiring adjudication of detailed
evidence and interpretation of the terms of
the contract, may be an exception to the
aforementioned general principle.

11. In a given set of facts, where the
State or its instrumentalities are parties to a
contract, they would be under an obligation
in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably,
which is the requirement under Article 14
of the Constitution of India. In such a
situation where the instrumentalities of the
State
act
unfairly,
unjustifiably,
unreasonably or arbitrarily in discharge of
contractual obligations, the same would be
held to be violative of the constitutional
guarantee embedded in Article 14 and the
aggrieved party cannot be precluded from
invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India nor the
court would be denuded of its power of
granting proper reliefs.

12. While considering the question
with regard to maintainability of a writ
petition in such matters, it was held in ABL
International Ltd. And Another vs.
Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of
India
Ltd.
And
Others2
that
in
appropriate cases, not only a writ petition
against a State or instrumentality of State
arising out of contractual obligation would
be maintainable but the consequential relief
of
monetary
claim
would
also
be
entertainable.

13. In the case at hand, it is evident
that there is no dispute relating to the
amount due and payable to the petitioner.
The instructions received by the learned
Standing Counsel clearly indicate that the
balance amount has not been paid for the
reason that necessary funds have not been
made available by the State Government so
far.

14. Once the petitioner had performed
its contractual obligations under the work
order and the amount due is admitted, we
find no justification on part of the
respondents not to make payment. Our
attention has been invited towards order
passed in Writ-C No. 21018 of 2021
(Saubhagya Industries Ltd. Vs. State of
U.P. and 3 others), wherein identical
controversy was raised and when this Court
directed the concerned respondent therein
3 All. Rajesh Singh Sengar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
985
to file his personal affidavit disclosing the
time frame within which payment of due
amount would be made, the respondents
made the payment and filed an affidavit to
the said effect. It is pointed out that the
case of the petitioner is on a similar footing
inasmuch as approval for making payment
was granted in respect of petitioner as also
M/s Saubhagya Industries Ltd. (supra) by
the same order dated 5.3.2021 issued by
A.D.M., Finance and Revenue, Meerut.

15. We are of considered opinion that
in the facts and circumstances noted above,
there is no justification in not making
payment of the amount due and payable to
the petitioner.

16. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus
is issued directing the respondents to
ensure that the amount due and payable to
the petitioner is released in its favour
within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a true attested copy of the
instant order by the second respondent.

17. The writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2022)03ILR A985
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 29566 of 2021

Rajesh Singh Sengar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sanjeev Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Arms Act, 1959 - Rule 17 -
Arms Rules, 2016 - Schedule II - Rules 5,
17 - Arms Rules 1962 - Rule 54 -Renewal
of Arms License - In case of change in
permanent residence to the district where
renewal is sought, the licencing authority
of such district would hence forward
become
responsible
for
watching
all
future renewals of licence and shall inform
the original issuing authority accordingly.
It is also provided that the procedure is to
be repeated on each subsequent occasion
of renewal of licence. (Para 16)

In the present case, once the permanent
address of the petitioner had shifted from State
of Haryana to State of Uttar Pradesh, he was
required to make an application before the
District Magistrate Unnao for renewal of his
arms licence in that particular district as per
Rule 54 of Rules, 1962. It is apparent that
petitioner's application for renewal dated 12th
January, 2015 was rightly made to the District
Magistrate, Unnao in terms of Schedule II of
Rules 1962. The renewal thereafter by the
District Magistrate, Unnao and intimating the
same
to
District
Magistrate
Sirsa
were
completely in accordance with Rule 54 of the
said Rules. (Para 17, 22)

It is also evident that petitioner had submitted
his application for renewal vide letter dated 15th
March, 2021, well before its expiry and the
same was required to be considered and
decided by the District Magistrate Unnao and
not the District Magistrate Sirsa in view of Rules
54 of the Rules 1962 and Rule 5 and 17 of the
Rules 2016. The mere fact that petitioner's
issuing authority has been indicated in
N.D.A.L. Portal as Sirsa, Haryana is an
error by opposite parties themselves, the
benefit of which cannot be extended to
them to the detriment of petitioner. It was
the duty of opposite parties to have
updated their records once petitioner's
licence stood renewed by the District
Magistrate Unnao. The fact whether District
Magistrate,
Unnao
intimated
the
District
Magistrate
Sirsa
regarding
renewal
of
petitioner's licence in 2015 and subsequently is