# M/S Annapurna Construction Co v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 306
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-17
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 32144 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-annapurna-construction-co-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52982
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner, a registered
contractor, sought a writ of mandamus for
the release of payment for the contractual
1 All. M/S Annapurna Construction Co. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
307
work executed under the Basic Services to
the Urban Poor Yojana- The construction
work was completed within stipulated
period, and houses were handed over to
allottees, however, the petitioner alleged
that payments totaling Rs. 15,81,540/-
along with a security deposit Rs. 96000/-
remain
unpaid
despite
multiple
representations-
Held,
the
disputed
questions of fact regarding payments
made or due under a contract cannot be
adjudicated under Article 226 of the
Constitution-Relying on Supreme court
precedents, (Kerala SEB VsKurien, Orrissa
Agro Industries corp. Ltd. Vs Bharati
Industries)
the
court
reiterated
that
contractual disputes without a statutory
element
should
be
resolved
through
appropriate civil or arbitral proceedings
rather than writ jurisdiction. (Para 1 to
13) (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
equitable situation demands after setting
right the legal formulations, not to take
it to the logical end, the High Court
would be failing in its duty if it does not
notice
equitable
consideration
and
mould the final order in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other
approach would render the High Court a
normal court of appeal which it is not."

35. Consequently, considering the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
as well as exercising the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution of India and in
view of the aforesaid discussion, it is thus
apparent that the Government order dated
28.07.2021 merits to be quashed so far as it
pertains to the petitioner along with the
order dated 26.08.2021.

36. So far as the ground taken by the
respondents that the regularization order of
the petitioner was irregular, the same may
not detain the Court keeping in view of the
observations made by the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Umesh
Chandra Yadav (supra) as reproduced
above per which the petitioner acquired a
right to be regularized in view of the Rules,
2016.

37. So far as the ground that no post is
now lying vacant on which the petitioner can
continue as urged by the respondents, the said
ground is found to be patently misconceived
inasmuch as the regularization order of the
petitioner dated 23.06.2021 itself indicates
that the petitioner has been regularized
against a vacant post of Lighter/Porter in the
pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 and thus if at this
stretch of time, no post is lying vacant, the
same will not effect the case of the petitioner.

38. Consequently, the writ petition is
allowed. The orders impugned dated
26.08.2021, a cop of which is annexure 1 to
the
writ
petition
and
order
dated
28.07.2021, a copy of which is annexure 2
to the writ petition so far as it pertains to
the petitioner, respectively, are quashed.

39. Consequences to follow.

40. At this stage, learned counsel for
the respondents states that there might be
some difficulty in fixing the seniority of the
petitioner viz-a-viz the other persons who
have been regularized in pursuance to the
order of the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Umesh Chandra Yadav
(supra) subsequent to the petitioner. As
already indicated above, this order has been
passed in peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case and shall not be considered as a
precedent.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 306
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ C No. 32144 of 2021

M/S Annapurna Construction Co.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Girish Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mukul Tripathi, S.C., Sri Vivek Saran

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner, a registered
contractor, sought a writ of mandamus for
the release of payment for the contractual
1 All. M/S Annapurna Construction Co. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
307
work executed under the Basic Services to
the Urban Poor Yojana- The construction
work was completed within stipulated
period, and houses were handed over to
allottees, however, the petitioner alleged
that payments totaling Rs. 15,81,540/-
along with a security deposit Rs. 96000/-
remain
unpaid
despite
multiple
representations-
Held,
the
disputed
questions of fact regarding payments
made or due under a contract cannot be
adjudicated under Article 226 of the
Constitution-Relying on Supreme court
precedents, (Kerala SEB VsKurien, Orrissa
Agro Industries corp. Ltd. Vs Bharati
Industries)
the
court
reiterated
that
contractual disputes without a statutory
element
should
be
resolved
through
appropriate civil or arbitral proceedings
rather than writ jurisdiction. (Para 1 to
13) (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ker. SEB Vs Kurien E. Kalathil (2000) 6 SCC
293

2. Ori. Agro Indus. Corp. Ltd.Vs Bharati
Indus.(2005) 12 SCC 725

3. M/s Biotech System Vs St. of UP & ors.(2020)
11 ADJ 488 DB

4. U.O.I. Vs Puna Hinda (2021) 10 SCC 690

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf , J.)

1. The present petition has been filed
under 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing the State respondent to release the
payment for the contractual work done by
the petitioner with regard to the work
orders given by the Respondent No. 4/The
Project
Manager,
Slum
Urban
Development Authority, on behalf of State
Government under the contract.

2. The factual matrix of the case is
delineated below:

a. The petitioner is a registered
contractor
with
the
Public
Works
Department, Kanpur, who was awarded
work for the construction of residence
under the Basic Services to the Urban Poor
Yojana at Kishanpur, Kanpur Nagar, which
was introduced as a reform under a scheme
namely 'Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban
Renewal Mission' launched by the Union
Government for urban poor under the slum
development program. The funding pattern
for this scheme was, 30% participation by
the Union Government and 70% by the
State Government.

b.
Vide
work
orders
dated
February 3, 2014 and March 4, 2014, the
petitioner was tasked with the construction
of houses by the Respondent No.3 under
the said Yojna in Kishanpur, Kanpur
Nagar.

c. The petitioner completed the
construction work within the stipulated
period under the supervision of the Project
Manager (Respondent No. 4). The work
was verified through spot visits by
Respondent No. 3 and the Project Manager.

d. Upon satisfaction, the houses
were handed over to allottees in multiple
phases between June 18, 2014 to June 17,
2015,
with
proper
documentation
maintained and submitted to respondent
authorities.

e.
Bills
amounting
to
Rs.15,81,540/- were submitted on June 17,
2014, which were duly scrutinized and
passed by the concerned authorities.
Additionally, the petitioner claims that a
security deposit of Rs. 96,000/- remains
unreleased.

f. The petitioner was also directed
to complete additional work (sewer line,
window fitting, and brick flooring) without
a formal work order. Despite completion
and verification of this work, neither was a
work order created nor bills processed.
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

g. Completion certificate was
issued on December 27, 2019.

h. Multiple representations were
made by the petitioner since October 16,
2015, but payment remains pending.
Through letter dated March 4, 2020, the
unit in-charge informed that old payments
cannot be processed as per state level
authorities.

CONTENTION
OF
THE
PETITIONER

3.
Sri
Girish
Chandra,
counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
made the following submissions:

i. The petitioner had completed
the entire work in the year 2014 and after
inspection, bills were duly submitted, also
quality of work was found to be in
consonance to the norms and standards of
the terms and conditions mentioned in the
contract but the authority had not made any
payment for the executed work.

ii. The bills raised against the
work order were duly approved by the
Additional Project Manager/Sub Engineer,
who are the competent authority, therefore,
the same is liable to be paid.

iii. As per the procedure under
clause 15 of the terms and condition of the
work order, any dispute arising out of the
contract shall be decided by the officer incharge of unit only and the decision shall
be final but the authority had neither
decided the representation of the petitioner
nor paid the amount.

iv. The State authority cannot
deny payment for work done and financial
constraint is not a valid defence on the part
of the respondents authority.

CONTENTION
OF
THE
RESPONDENTS

4. Sri Vivek Saran and Sri Mukul
Tripathi, counsel appearing on behalf
respondents have made the following
submissions:

i. Pursuant to the execution of
alleged work order for construction of
houses,
the
bill
amounting
to
Rs.15,81,540/- had been raised by the
petitioner and the payments had already
been made to the petitioner. Since the said
bill was again presented before the
respondents therefore, the same was
rejected by the then Engineer on the ground
of being already paid. So far as the
payment of security amount is concerned, it
had not been paid due to shortcomings
found during the spot inspection of the
work done.

ii. Bills, which have been raised
by the petitioner, were not approved by the
competent authority and the Sub-Engineer,
who has allegedly signed the said bills was
under
suspension
during
that
time,
therefore, that would not be treated as bills
approved by the competent authority.
Hence, the said bills can not be claimed to
be admitted one. Notice was also issued to
the Sub-Engineer on complained made by
the petitioner.

iii. Other bills of the petitioner
issued by the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam
Limited, were subject to the verification by
the Resident Engineer which has not been
done. Hence, the payment of the bills has
not been made.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

5. Upon hearing the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties and upon
perusal of the records, this Court is of the
view that there is dispute of fact with
regard to the payment having been made
for execution of the work.
1 All. M/S Annapurna Construction Co. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
309

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioner submits that the payment of work
and security amount has not been made till
date and if the payment has been made then
the Respondent should show the mode of
payment.

7. Per contra, counsel on behalf of
respondents submit that the payment of
executed work has already been made to
the petitioner but security amount has been
retained due to some shortcomings found in
the executed work.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of
Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil
reported in (2000) 6 SCC 293 has held
that writ court is not the proper forum for
resolution
of
disputes
in
contractual
matters.
The
relevant
paragraph
is
delineated below:

"10. We find that there is a merit
in the first contention of Mr Raval. Learned
counsel
has
rightly
questioned
the
maintainability of the writ petition. The
interpretation and implementation of a
clause in a contract cannot be the subjectmatter of a writ petition. Whether the
contract envisages actual payment or not is
a question of construction of contract. If a
term of a contract is violated, ordinarily
the remedy is not the writ petition under
Article 226. We are also unable to agree
with the observations of the High Court
that
the
contractor
was
seeking
enforcement of a statutory contract. 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. We are also unable to agree
with the observation of the High Court that
since the obligations imposed by the
contract on the contracting parties come
within the purview of the Contract Act, that
would not make the contract statutory.
Clearly, the High Court fell into an error in
coming to the conclusion that the contract
in question was statutory in nature."

9. The Supreme Court in the case of
Orissa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. v.
Bharati Industries reported in (2005) 12
SCC 725 dealt with the maintainabilty of a
petition under Article 226 specifically on
disputed questions of fact involved in
contractual
matters.
The
relevant
paragraphs are delineated below:

"7. A bare perusal of the High
Court's judgment shows that there was
clear non-application of mind. On one
hand the High Court observed that the
disputed questions cannot be gone into a
writ petition. It was also noticed that the
essence of the dispute was breach of
contract. After coming to the above
conclusions the High Court should have
dismissed the writ petition. Surprisingly,
the High Court proceeded to examine the
case solely on the writ petitioner's
assertion and on a very curious reasoning
that though the appellant Corporation
claimed that the value of articles lifted was
nearly Rs 14.90 lakhs no details were
specifically given. From the counteraffidavit filed before the High Court it is
crystal-clear that relevant details disputing
claim of the writ petitioner were given.
Value of articles lifted by the writ petitioner
is a disputed factual question. Where a
complicated question of fact is involved
and the matter requires thorough proof on
factual aspects, the High Court should not
entertain the writ petition. Whether or not
the High Court should exercise jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution would
largely depend upon the nature of dispute
and if the dispute cannot be resolved
without going into the factual controversy,
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the High Court should not entertain the
writ petition. As noted above, the writ
petition
was
primarily
founded
on
allegation of breach of contract. Question
whether the action of the opposite party in
the writ petition amounted to breach of
contractual obligation ultimately depends
on facts and would require material
evidence to be scrutinised and in such a
case writ jurisdiction should not be
exercised.
***

9. In the instant case the High
Court has itself observed that disputed
questions of fact were involved and yet
went on to give directions as if it was
adjudicating the money claim in a suit. The
course is clearly impermissible."

10. The coordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of M/S Bio Tech System v.
State Of U.P. and Others reported in
(2020) 11 ADJ 488DB has emphasised the
limited power of the writ court exercising
obligation in contractual matters . The
relevant paragraphs are delineated below:

"39.
The
general
principles
which may be culled out from the
aforementioned judgments is 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. 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. Pure contractual obligation in
the absence of any statutory complexion
would not be enforceable through a writ.

40. The remedy under Article 226
of the Constitution being an extraordinary
remedy, it is not intended to be used for the
purpose of declaring private rights of the
parties. In the case of enforcement of
contractual rights and liabilities the normal
remedy of filing a civil suit being available
to the aggrieved party, this Court may not
exercise its prerogative writ jurisdiction to
enforce such contractual obligations."

11. The Supreme Court in a recent
case of Union of India v. Puna Hinda
reported in (2021) 10 SCC 690 has further
held that the jurisdiction of High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is wide, but pure contractual matters
in field of private law, having no statutory
flavour, are better adjudicated upon by
forum agreed to by parties. Dispute could
not be raised by way of a writ petition on
disputed question of facts. The relevant
paragraphs are delineated below:

"24. Therefore, the dispute could
not be raised by way of a writ petition on
the disputed questions of fact. Though, the
jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in
respect of pure contractual matters in the
field of private law, having no statutory
flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the
forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute
as to whether the amount is payable or not
and/or how much amount is payable are
disputed questions of facts. There is no
admission on the part of the appellants to
infer that the amount stands crystallised.
Therefore,
in
the
absence
of
any
acceptance of joint survey report by the
competent authority, no right would accrue
to the writ petitioner only because
measurements cannot be undertaken after
passage of time. Maybe, the resurvey
cannot take place but the measurement
books of the work executed from time to
1 All. Vikash Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
311
time would form a reasonable basis for
assessing the amount due and payable to
the writ petitioner, but such process could
be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e.
arbitration and not by the writ court as it
does not have the expertise in respect of
measurements or construction of roads.

25. A perusal of the matter shows
that collusion of some of the officers of the
appellants with the contractor cannot be
ruled out. Such collusion seems to be the
basis of the writ petition filed before the
High Court."

12. In the present factual matrix, the
petitioner has not been able to bring on record
any document wherein the respondent
authorities have admitted that a particular
sum is owed to them. On the contrary, the
respondents have disputed the claim of the
petitioner in their counter affidavit. One has
to keep in mind that when disputed questions
of fact are present, the writ jurisdiction is not
the viable forum, as such disputes cannot be
decided upon bare exchange of affidavits. As
clearly enunciated in the judgments cited
above, in areas of contractual disputes, parties
have to approach the civil courts or go for
arbitration (if provided for). The writ court
would only in exceptional circumstances,
when the outstanding payments are admitted
by the respondents, enter into the arena and
pass a writ of mandamus and in no other
case.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 311
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ C No. 33495 of 2024

Vikash Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Mahendra Singh, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Practice and Procedure - Constitution
of India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ -
Maintainability - Block Pramukh, against
whom no confidence motion was moved,
was though impleaded as respondent no.
4, but could not be impleaded by name -
Effect - Held, the purpose of impleadment
of a person is only for a notice being sent
to the person to provide an opportunity of
hearing. The respondent No. 4 has already
put in appearance and her counsel has
been heard - In any case, improper
imleadment is a curable defect and can
never be fatal for a writ petition. (Para 22)

B. Local bodies Law - UP Kshettra
Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam,
1961 - Section 15(2) - No Confidence
Motion
-
Competence
of
District
Panchayat Raj Officer to take decision on
its notice - Failure of Collector to perform
its duty - Effect - Held, when under the
provisions of S. 15, jurisdiction is vested in
the Collector to convene a meeting and
take other steps, it is the Collector himself
who is responsible to undertake the
exercise of recording his prima facie
satisfaction as to the validity of the notice
and pass appropriate order thereon - The
District Panchayat Raj Officer has no role
to play and has no jurisdiction to either
reject or to accept a notice of a motion of
no confidence - Either the Collector does
not understand his duties under the Act or
he has willful permitted an illegality to
happen. No one can be permitted to
deviate from a solemn obligation imposed