# M/s Chitra Gupta Trading v. U.P. Public Works Department and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 412
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8977 of 2008
- **Bench:** R.K.Agrawal, Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-chitra-gupta-trading-v-u-p-public-works-department-and-others-41497
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art.226- Clearance
of
Bills-petitioner
a
government
contractor-completed task within time
scheduled-Bill and working approvedcounter affidavit accepted the claim but
due to paucity fund-could not be cleared-
direction
to
give
entire
amount
with.12% interest thereon.

Held Para-4

Accordingly, this Court is convinced that
delay
in
making
payment
to
the
petitioner is not justified. It has been
held by this Court that on completion of
work if there is no dispute about
bill/quantum of payment should be
ensured to the petitioner and the writ
petitions were allowed from time to
time. Reference can be given to the
recent orders passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No. 8974 of 2005, Chain
Shakti Cosmetic decided on 9.7.2009 and
Writ Petition No 14821 of 2008 Vijay
Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others
decided on 13.7.2009.
Case law discussed:
Writ Petition No. 8974 of 2005, Chain Shakti
Cosmetic decided on 9.7.2009 and Writ
Petition No 14821 of 2008 Vijay Kumar Yadav
vs. State of U.P. and others decided on
13.7.2009.

## Text

412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
64. It will, thus, be noticed that the
averments made in paragraph 30 of the writ
petition have not been denied in paragraph
21 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the respondent nos. 1 and 2. In the
circumstances, there is no reason to doubt
the correctness of the averments made in
paragraph 30 of the writ petition. It is, thus,
evident that the enquiry was conducted by
the Tehsildar and the Deputy District
Magistrate, Bhognipur, Kanpur
Dehat
without any intimation to the petitioners,
and behind the back of the petitioners. It is
further evident that copy of the Enquiry
Report was not supplied to the petitioners at
any point of time.

65. A perusal of the impugned order
dated 13.12.2005 shows that the Deputy
Registrar (respondent no.2) has relied upon
the said enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar
and
the
Deputy
District
Magistrate,
Bhognipur,
and
the
Enquiry
Report
submitted as a result of the said enquiry.

66. As the said enquiry was conducted
without any intimation to the petitioners and
behind the back of the petitioners and even
copy of the Enquiry Report was not given to
the petitioners, the Deputy Registrar
(respondent no.2) has acted in violation of
the principles of natural justice in placing
reliance on the said enquiry and the Enquiry
Report submitted as a result thereof while
passing the impugned order. The impugned
order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the
Deputy Registrar (respondent no.2) has,
thus, been passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice.

67. In view of the above discussion, I
am of the opinion that the writ petition
deserves to be allowed and the impugned
order dated 13.12.2005 (Annexure-10 to the
writ petition) passed by the Deputy
Registrar (respondent no.2) is liable to be
quashed, and the matter is liable to be
remanded
to
the
Deputy
Registrar
(respondent no.2) for deciding the same
afresh in accordance with law keeping in
view the observations made in this
judgment and also keeping in view the
developments, if any, subsequent to the
passing of the impugned order dated
13.12.2005 after affording opportunity of
hearing to all concerned including the
petitioners and the respondent no.4.

68. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
13.12.2005 (Annexure-10 to the writ
petition) passed by the Deputy Registrar
(respondent no.2) is quashed, and the matter
is remanded to the Deputy Registrar
(respondent no.2) for deciding the same
afresh in accordance with law keeping in
view the observations made in this
judgment and also keeping in view the
developments, if any, subsequent to the
passing of the impugned order dated
13.12.2005 after affording opportunity of
hearing to all concerned including the
petitioners and the respondent no.4.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K.AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8977 of 2008

M/s Chitra Gupta Trading ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P.
Public
Works
Department
and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.K. Singh
1 All] M/s Chitra Gupta Trading V. U.P. Public Works Department and others
413
Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art.226- Clearance
of
Bills-petitioner
a
government
contractor-completed task within time
scheduled-Bill and working approvedcounter affidavit accepted the claim but
due to paucity fund-could not be cleared-
direction
to
give
entire
amount
with.12% interest thereon.

Held Para-4

Accordingly, this Court is convinced that
delay
in
making
payment
to
the
petitioner is not justified. It has been
held by this Court that on completion of
work if there is no dispute about
bill/quantum of payment should be
ensured to the petitioner and the writ
petitions were allowed from time to
time. Reference can be given to the
recent orders passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No. 8974 of 2005, Chain
Shakti Cosmetic decided on 9.7.2009 and
Writ Petition No 14821 of 2008 Vijay
Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others
decided on 13.7.2009.
Case law discussed:
Writ Petition No. 8974 of 2005, Chain Shakti
Cosmetic decided on 9.7.2009 and Writ
Petition No 14821 of 2008 Vijay Kumar Yadav
vs. State of U.P. and others decided on
13.7.2009.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents.

2. Prayer in this writ petition is for
the issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing
respondents
to
make
the
payment to the petitioner in respect of the
work done/completed.

3. Submission is that the petitioner
is a registered contractor in Public Works
Department, Ballia and completed the
work assigned satisfactorily. Submission
is that after completion of work in the
year 2000, bills were submitted but till
date payment has not been made to the
petitioner. Record shows that there is no
dispute
with
regard
to
the
work
done/completed by the petitioner and the
amount so payable to the petitioner has
been physically and technically verified
and all the bills are passed by the
authorities but due to non availability of
fund/budget the petitioner is not able to
get the amount.

Counter affidavit has been filed by
respondent authorities.

In the counter affidavit filed by S.P.
Srivastava, who is Assistant Engineer in
Public Works Department in paragraph
nos.4 to 8 has accepted the liability for
payment to the petitioner for the work
done. It has been stated in the counter
affidavit that the payment of the bill is
already under consideration and the
amount shall be paid as soon as the funds
are released by the State Government.

In view of the aforesaid there is
absolutely no dispute of the fact that the
claim of the petitioner is not justified.

4. Accordingly, this Court is
convinced that delay in making payment
to the petitioner is not justified. It has
been held by this Court that on
completion of work if there is no dispute
about bill/quantum of payment payment
should be ensured to the petitioner and the
writ petitions were allowed from time to
time. Reference can be given to the recent
orders passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No. 8974 of 2005, Chain Shakti
Cosmetic decided on 9.7.2009 and Writ
414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Petition No 14821 of 2008 Vijay Kumar
Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others
decided on 13.7.2009.

Accordingly, this Court is of the
view that the petitioner is entitled to get
relief.

5. This writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. Respondents are directed to
ensure payment of outstanding amount as
may be found due and payable to the
petitioner with the interest of twelve per
cent per annum from one month after the
date of entitlement to the date of payment.
The payment has to be ensured within a
period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4572 of 2007

Smt. Malti Devi

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Girish Chandra Yadav
Sri R.K. Misra
Sri V.K. Rai
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K. Singh
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226- TransferAssistant Teacher in Primary School run
by district Social welfare officer-Transfer
from
one
institution
to
another
institution-not
permissible-grievance
that at Transferred institution- one Mr.
'A' even after his retirement interfering
with the affairs of the institution- on
inquiry the D.D.E. rightly held the
petitioner should go back of her previous
institution
warrant
no
interference-
Petition dismissed-petition has no right
to question functioning- where transfer
order itself illegal.

Held Para-10

There is no good ground made out to
interfere with the impugned order. The
Director, Samaj Kalyan had clarified by
his circular letter dated 27.3.1987 that
all the primary schools running for the
benefit of scheduled caste students from
the government funds were independent
units and that the inter-se transfer
between these schools was not allowed.
The
petitioner's
transfer
after
the
clarification dated 27.3.1987 in the year
1988, was not a regular transfer and
thus she did not have a right to take over
as Head Mistress at Anusuchit Primary
Pathshala at Mudiyar, Block Mirzapur,
Tehsil Nizamabad in District Azamgarh
and to run the school.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Shri Girish Chandra
Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for the
State respondents. Shri Ram Kirti Singh
appears for the respondent no. 6.

2. The petitioner Smt. Malti Devi
was appointed as Assistant Teacher in
Anusuchit Jati Primary Pathshala Charan
Raj Pokhare Chiraiya Kot, District
Azamgarh in the year 1982. It is stated by
her in para-3 of the writ petition that she
was transferred from Chiraiyakot to
Girdharpur and again from Girdharpur to
Badi Korauli Saraimeer in 1983. She was
lastly transferred from Badi Korauli to
Mudiyar in place of Shri Ram Awadh
Ram and started functioning as Head
Mistress after the retirement of Shri Ram