# M/S Maha Shakti Traders & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 832
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-17
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 10032 of 2002
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava, Amitabh Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-maha-shakti-traders-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54796
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Manoj Kumar Mishra

Issue for consideration
The main issue was whether the payment can
be
denied
to
the
petitioner
for
work
11 All. M/S Maha Shakti Traders & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
833
substantially completed pursuant to a valid
tender
merely
because
the
tender
was
subsequently cancelled.

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India,
1950-Tender-Award
of
contractSubstantial
completion
of
worksubsequent

cancellation-right
to
payment-Petitioner's firm completed 85%
to 90% of sewerage construction work
and supplied the entire quantity of clamps
with
nut
bolts,
the
subsequent
cancellation of the tender at a belated
stage cannot be a valid ground to deny
payment for the work already executedWhen
the
authorities
permitted
the
petitioner to continue with work and
accepted the supply of materials, they are
bound by the principle of promissory
estoppel and cannot subsequently refuse
payment on the ground of tender
cancellation-Writ petition allowed.(E-6)
Held
The court held that the public authorities cannot
derive benefit from work executed by a
contractor and thereafter deny payment on
technical grounds as such conduct would result
in unjust enrichment-Once it is admitted that
the petitioner completed a substantial portion of
the work and supplied materials as per the work
order, the respondents are obligated to release
payment, notwithstanding the later cancellation
of the tender.(Para 17 to 21)

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950

List of keywords
Tender,
award
of
contract,
sewerage
construction, supply of clamps and nut bolts,
lowest bidder , work order issued, substantial
completion
of
work,
non-payment,
discrimination,
promissory
estoppel,
unjust
enrichment, fraud, negligence, contractor.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ - CNo. 10032of 2002

M/S Maha Shakti Traders & Anr. Vs. State
Of U.P.&Ors.
From the judgment and order dated 17.11.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Petitioner:
Saumya Mandhyan

Advs.for the Respondents:
Manoj Kumar Mishra

## Text

832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stipulated time has lapsed, it is not open to
the petitioner to raise any fresh objection
against the competing bidders. No reason
for the delay, or for not availing the threeday period provided under the Government
Order dated August 25, 2020, has been
stated in the writ petition. Moreover, the
allegations of mala fides raised in this writ
petition are vague and ambiguous in nature.

24. As per ratio laid down in a
catena of judgements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it is clear that the scope of
judicial review in contractual matters is
very limited. Moreover, the respondents
have the freedom to award the contract.
The fair play in the joints is a necessary
concomitant for an administrative body
functioning in an administrative sphere or
quasi-administrative sphere.

25. The power of judicial review
will not be permitted to be invoked to
protect private interest at the cost of public
interest, or to decide contractual disputes.
The tenderer or contractor with a grievance
can always seek damages in a civil court. In
this case, bid of the petitioner was rejected
on the ground of concealment of relevant
facts. No benefit can be awarded to the
bidder, who has not filed the bid with clean
hands. The attempts of the unsuccessful
bidder is with imaginary grievances,
wounded pride and business rivalry. The
petitioner by means of the instant writ
petition is trying to make a mountain out of
molehill
by
pointing
out
some
technical/procedural
violation,
and
persuade
the
court
to
interfere
by
exercising power of judicial review. Any
interference by this Court would amount to
holding up public works and would cause
huge loss to the State Exchequer. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of
judgements has held that infrastructure
projects should not be halted for mere
technicalities. The Supreme Court has
categorically deprecates the practice of
interference by the High Court simpliciter
as a matter of course. Unless specific and
cogent grounds are made out that indicate
arbitrariness
and/or
mala
fide,
no
interference is warranted.

26. In the instant matter, since the
bid of the petitioner has been rejected on
the
ground of
concealment
and
no
objection on the bid of the respondent no. 7
was raised as per the time period provided,
we do not deem it fit to intervene at this
stage.

27. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, we see no merit in this
writ petition, and the same is accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 832
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ - C No. 10032 of 2002

M/S Maha Shakti Traders & Anr.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Saumya Mandhyan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Manoj Kumar Mishra

Issue for consideration
The main issue was whether the payment can
be
denied
to
the
petitioner
for
work
11 All. M/S Maha Shakti Traders & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
833
substantially completed pursuant to a valid
tender
merely
because
the
tender
was
subsequently cancelled.

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India,
1950-Tender-Award
of
contractSubstantial
completion
of
worksubsequent

cancellation-right
to
payment-Petitioner's firm completed 85%
to 90% of sewerage construction work
and supplied the entire quantity of clamps
with
nut
bolts,
the
subsequent
cancellation of the tender at a belated
stage cannot be a valid ground to deny
payment for the work already executedWhen
the
authorities
permitted
the
petitioner to continue with work and
accepted the supply of materials, they are
bound by the principle of promissory
estoppel and cannot subsequently refuse
payment on the ground of tender
cancellation-Writ petition allowed.(E-6)
Held
The court held that the public authorities cannot
derive benefit from work executed by a
contractor and thereafter deny payment on
technical grounds as such conduct would result
in unjust enrichment-Once it is admitted that
the petitioner completed a substantial portion of
the work and supplied materials as per the work
order, the respondents are obligated to release
payment, notwithstanding the later cancellation
of the tender.(Para 17 to 21)

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950

List of keywords
Tender,
award
of
contract,
sewerage
construction, supply of clamps and nut bolts,
lowest bidder , work order issued, substantial
completion
of
work,
non-payment,
discrimination,
promissory
estoppel,
unjust
enrichment, fraud, negligence, contractor.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ - CNo. 10032of 2002

M/S Maha Shakti Traders & Anr. Vs. State
Of U.P.&Ors.
From the judgment and order dated 17.11.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Petitioner:
Saumya Mandhyan

Advs.for the Respondents:
Manoj Kumar Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitabh Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Saumya Mandhyan,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Krishna Dutt Mishra, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been
preferred seeking the following reliefs :-

"(i) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order and judgment dated
20.01.2016 passed by the Respondent No. 2
so far as it concerns the Petitioner No. 1,
being arbitrary, whimsical and bad in law;

(ii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to release the
amount of Rs. 59,62,135/- for the tender
work of Sewer Construction (Nala Nirman)
from Soron Gate Police Chowki to
Allahnoor Saifi's Shop to the petitioners;

(iii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to release the
amount of Rs. 2,22,000/- for the tender
work of supply of clamps with nut bolt to
the petitioners;"

3. The brief facts of the case are that
tenders were invited by the Nagar Palika
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Parishad, Kasganj for 41 categories of
works vide tender notification dated
4.8.2015.
The
petitioners
firm
in
furtherance of the tender notification
submitted bid for two tenders, one for
construction of sewerage from Soron Gate
Police Chowki to Allahnoor Saifi's Shop
with bid amount of Rs.59,62,135/-. The bid
of the petitioners firm was lowest,
hence tender committee recommended for
award of tender to the petitioners firm on
19.8.2015 which was accepted and the
work order was issued. The petitioners
firm also submitted bid for supply of
clamps with nut bolts which was also
accepted in favour of the petitioners firm.
As per the tender invitation notice dated
4.8.2015,
the
work
of
sewerage
construction was to be completed within
two months and the supply of clamp was to
be made within 15 days of the award of the
tender. The supply order was issued by the
Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad,
Kashganj for supply of the clamp along
with nut bolts which is annexed at Page No.
47 of the writ petition and furtherance
thereof petitioners firm supplied the
quantity of clamps with nut bolts which
was duly acknowledged and the receipt of
such acknowledgment are collectively
annexed as Annexure No.8 to the writ
petition.

4. The acknowledgment indicates that
the supply of the clamp along with nut
bolts were made between the period
3.11.2015 to 24.11.2015. In the meantime,
it seems that some complaint was made by
one of the contractor which was inquired
upon by the Additional District Magistrate,
Kasganj who submitted its report dated
29.12.2015 and on the basis of the said
inquiry report, order dated 20.1.2016 was
passed by the District Magistate, Kasganj
cancelling the tender invitation notice dated
4.8.2015. In the meantime, the petitioners
firm has already supplied the clamp along
with nut bolts in reference to the tender
invitation notice dated 4.8.2015 amounting
to Rs.2,22,000/- and has also completed the
construction of the sewerage up to 85 to 90
per cent.

5. It seems that thereafter a fresh
tender notice was issued inviting tender
with respect to the works which were also
part of the notice inviting tender dated
4.8.2015, out of which many works already
stood completed, hence a complaint was
made
and
the
Additional
District
Magistrate, Kasganj/ In charge (Local
Bodies) instituted inquiry vide letter dated
10.3.2016 by a team comprising of
Tehsildar (Judicial), Kasganj, Executive
Officer
P.W.D.,
Kasganj,
Executive
Officer, Rural Engineering Department,
Kasganj. The committee submitted its
report on the basis of which the Additional
District Magistrate, Kasganj/ In charge
(Local
Bodies)
issued
order
dated
15.6.2016 referred to Executive Officer,
Nagar Palika Parishad, Kasganj indicating
therein that the District Magistrate on
10.6.2016 has passed order to cancel those
tenders which has been re-invited for work
which already stood completed and to not
open the bid for those works which were
partially completed and for such works
separate estimate should be prepared and
then thereafter only fresh tenders should be
invited.

6. It was further directed by the
District Magistrate, Kasganj vide order
dated 10.6.2016 that tender bids for only
those works should be opened in which no
work has been done. The letter dated
15.6.2016 issued by the Additional District
Magistrate, Kasganj/ In charge (Local
Bodies)
also
refers
to
sewerage
11 All. M/S Maha Shakti Traders & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
835
construction work which was undertaken
by the petitioners firm in response to the
earlier tender notice dated 4.8.2015 which
was in the second category, i.e. those works
which were partially completed and for
which the District Magistrate, Kasganj vide
order dated 10.6.2016 had directed to
prepare the fresh estimate for completion of
the rest of the work and to invite fresh
tenders for remaining works. A spot
inspection
was
also
conducted
on
22.6.2016 by a team comprising of
Tehsildar (Judicial), Kasganj, Executive
Officer
P.W.D.,
Kasganj,
Executive
Officer, Rural Engineering Department,
Kasganj which also submits its report
indicating that the sewerage construction
work was done at the spot but it is
incomplete.

7. The petitioner in the meantime
personally met the authorities multiple
times and submitted representation dated
22.2.2017 for the payment of work done by
the petitioners firm with regard to
sewerage construction as well as towards
supply of clamp with nut bolts.

8. The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika
Parishad, Kasganj also wrote a letter dated
12.9.2018 to the District Magistrate,
Kasganj indicating therein that FDR with
regard the cancelled tenders have already
been returned to the contractors in
compliance of the order dated 15.3.2018
and also submitted a report in reference to
the tender awarded. However the FDR
submitted
by
the
petitioners
as
a
consequence of the award of the tender for
construction of sewerage was not returned
to the petitioner.

9. The petitioner also submitted
complaint
on
Tehsil
Diwas
under
Integrated Grievance Redressal System for
non payment of his dues on 19.2.2020 on
which the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika
Parishad, Kasganj submitted its report that
file with regard to the petitioners firm is
not available in the office. The petitioners
firm again submitted its complaint on
11.3.2020 under IGRS in which the
account department of the Nagar Palika
Parishad, Kasganj submitted its report that
due to lack of funds payments could not be
made.

10. The petitioner thereafter filed
several representation to the authorities
concerned
and
on
one
of
such
representations,
a
committee
was
constituted by the District Magistrate,
Kasganj constituting a team of four
members comprising of Additional District
Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Kasganj,
Chairman,
Executive
Engineer
Rural
Engineering
Department,
Kasganj,
Member, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika
Parishad,
Kasganj,
Member,
Junior
Engineer, Nagar Pakika Paraishad, Soron,
Member, however it is not clear whether
the said committee submitted any report.

11. The numerous representations
submitted by the petitioner for redressal of
grievance remained unanswered.

12. In the meantime the petitioner
came to know that payment was made to
one of the contractor who has done the
interlocking work from Mishan Chauraha
to Officer's colony which was the part of
the tender invitation notice dated 4.8.2015
and was subsequently cancelled vide order
dated 20.1.2016 by the District Magistrate,
Kasganj. The said payment was made in
the year 2018 as stated in Paragraph No. 29
of the writ petition. The counter affidavit
filed by the State Government has not
categorically disputed the said fact while
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filing reply of Paragraph No. 29 of the writ
petition. The petitioner by the inaction by
the respondents in making payments to the
work already done by him in furtherance of
the tender notice dated 4.8.2015 filed the
instant writ petition seeking the relief as
mentioned hereinabove.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that work with regard to
sewerage of construction as well as supply
of clamp with nut bolts has been done by
the petitioner pursuant to the award of
tender
to
the
petitioners
firm
on
19.08.2025, and subsequent thereto, work
order was issued. He further submits that as
per the tender invitation notice dated
04.08.2025,
the
work
of
sewerage
construction was to be completed within
two months and supply of clamp alongwith
nut bolts was to be made within fifteen
days of the award of tender.

14. He further submits that petitioner
within the time prescribed in the tender
notice completed the work of construction
of sewerage upto 85% to 90% and also
supplied clamp alongwith nut bolts which
fact is admitted by the respondents. It is
submitted that once petitioner has completed
85% to 90% work of sewerage construction
and supplied clamp with nut bolts in
compliance of work order, subsequent
cancellation of tender cannot be a ground to
deny the payment for the work of
construction of sewerage done by the
petitioner and supply of clamp with nut bolts
particularly when there was no charge against
the petitioner that there was any fault or
negligence on the part of the petitioner in
obtaining work order or work order has been
obtained by the petitioner by fraud.

15. He further submits that the action
of the respondents in not making payment
to the petitioner is arbitrary and in violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
inasmuch as in the identical circumstances,
respondent had made payment to one of the
contractors, who had done interlocking
work from Mishan Chauraha to Officers
Colony which was the part of the tender
invitation notice dated 04.08.2015 and was
subsequently cancelled vide order dated
20.01.2016
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Kasganj. He submits that the
said payment was made in the year 2018
and the fact of payment made to other
contractor has not been denied by the
respondents
in
the
counter
affidavit,
therefore, action of the respondents in not
making payment to the petitioner is
arbitrary and cannot be sustained in law.

16. Per contra, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel would contend that
since there was infirmity in issuing tender
notice,
therefore,
District
Magistrate,
Kasganj has passed an order of cancellation
of tender and accordingly, tender was
cancelled and fresh tender notice was
issued. Accordingly, he submits that since
the work order was not issued to the
petitioner in compliance of the valid tender
notice, therefore, petitioner is not entitled
to any amount for the work completed
under the tender notice.

17. The undisputed fact that emerges
from the pleadings in the writ petition as
well as per the averments made in the
counter affidavit filed by the respondents,
indicates that the petitioner completed 85 to
90 per cent of sewerage construction work
after the award of the tender dated 4.8.2015
before its cancellation vide order dated
20.1.2016 and in the meantime has also
completed the supply of the clamps along
with nut bolts in reference to another tender
which was also part of the tender notice
11 All. M/S Maha Shakti Traders & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
837
dated 4.8.2015. The inquiry reports referred
hereinabove i.e. 15.6.2016 and 28.6.2016
and spot inspection report dated 22.6.2016
conducted by the respondent authorities
also discloses the fact that the sewerage
construction work was partially completed
by the petitioner. In fact, the District
Magistrate, Kasganj directed for inviting
fresh tenders to the extent of incompleted
work of sewerage construction as per letter
dated 22.6.2016 of the Additional District
Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Kasganj.
It is the case of the respondents that the
petitioner has partially completed the
sewerage construction work as well as
supplied the clamp along with nut bolts in
furtherance of the tender notice dated
4.8.2015 but the payments could not be
made as subsequently the tender was
cancelled vide order dated 20.1.2016 and
no agreement was executed with the
petitioners firm for execution of the
work.

18. Be that may be, the respondents
cannot deny the payment of works done by
the petitioners firm in response to the
tenders awarded to it in reference to the
tender notice dated 4.8.2015 on the
ground that subsequently the tender was
cancelled
on
20.1.2016
as
in
the
interregnum period, the petitioners firm
has already completed 85 to 90 per cent
of the sewerage construction work and
has supplied the entire quantity of clamp
with nut bolts. The cancellation of tender
at the belated stage after more than five
months cannot prejudice the cause of the
petitioner entitling payment for the work
done as the time limit for construction of
sewerage was only two months as per the
tender notice dated 4.8.2015 and the
supply of clamp with nut bolts has to be
done within fifteen days of the award of
tender.

19. Once it is admitted that the
petitioners firm has constructed 85 to 90
per cent of the sewerage construction work
and has supplied the entire quantity of
clamp with nut bolts, and there is no charge
against the petitioner that he has obtained
the work order by fraud or by concealing
material fact then the respondents are
bound to make payment for the work done
by the petitioner's firm. The cancellation of
tender vide order dated 20.1.2016 at the
belated stage cannot come in the way of
denial of payment to the petitioners firm
as officials of Nagar Palika Parishad,
Kasganj allowed the petitioners firm to
continue with the work and supply of the
clamp with nut bolts and as such they
cannot turn around to deny payment to the
petitioners firm as they are bound by the
principle of promissory estoppel by their
own conduct.

20. It is also pertinent to mention that
the action of the respondents in not making
payment to the petitioner is arbitrary and is
in
violation
of
Article
14
of
the
Constitution
of
India
inasmuch
as
respondents in identical circumstances have
made payment to one of the contractor,
who had done the interlocking work from
Mishan Chauraha to Officer's Colony
which was the part of the tender invitation
notice
dated
04.08.2015
and
was
subsequently cancelled vide order dated
20.01.2016
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Kasganj. The said payment was
made in the year 2018, and this fact has not
been
categorically
denied
by
the
respondents while replying paragraph no.29
of the writ petition.

21. In view of the above, the writ
petition is allowed to the extent indicated
herein below and a writ of mandamus is
issued to the respondent no.2-District
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate, Kasganj to make payment of
work done by the petitioners firm
towards the sewerage construction from
Soron Gate Police Chowki to Allahnoor
Saifi's Shop to the extent of work
completed by the petitioner's firm and
towards the supply of clamp with nut bolts
within a period of two months from the
presentation of certified copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 838
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - C No. 10388 of 2019

Balwant Educational Society & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Amit Saxena (Senior Adv.), Fuzail Ahmad
Ansari, Mohd Aadil Siddiqui, Sri P.N.
Saksena(Senior Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, Kartikeya
Saran, Prabhakar Awasthi, Raj Kumar
Mishra, Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Tanisha
Jahangir Monir

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether any individual can claim, as a matter of
right, membership of the Board of Management
and the office of Vice President of Balwant
Educational Society on the basis of the extinct
title of "Raja of Awagarh Estate"; whether
succession to Vice-Presidentship is governed by
the Codicil of 1901 or alleged family custom;
and how the Society is required to be
administered when no valid Committee of
Management exists due to expiry of tenure,
pending litigation, and subsisting interim orders
of the High Court.
HEADNOTE
Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Balwant
Educational Society - Board of Management -
Vice President - Raja of Awagarh Estate -
Codicil of 1901 - Bye-laws of the Society -
Dispute between family members - No existing
Raja - No hereditary or vested right - Expiry of
tenure of Committees of Management - Interim
orders of High Court - Deputy Registrar acting
during pendency of litigation - Power of State
Government to fill vacancies - Clause 6(4) of
Rules - Directions issued.(E-5)
HELD:
There is no existing title such as "Raja of
Awagarh Estate" and, therefore, either of
Anirudh Pal Singh or Jitendra Pal Singh cannot
claim as a matter of right membership of the
Board of Management or Vice-Presidentship of
the Society on that basis. The Codicil of 1901,
only partly placed on record and not referred to
in the Rules or bye-laws of Balwant Educational
Society, cannot be interpreted so as to
determine succession or hierarchy in the Board
of Management. Clause 6(1)(b) of the Rules
does
not
support
any
claim
that
VicePresidentship would vest exclusively in the
eldest son, and no tradition or custom to that
effect has been brought on record. During
pendency of multiple writ petitions and
subsisting interim orders passed by this Court,
the Deputy Registrar had no power to
consider objections or approve any list of
office bearers contrary to such interim orders.
At
present,
no
valid
Committee
of
Management or Board of Management of
Balwant Educational Society. In view of Clause
6(4) of the Rules, the State Government
required to act and fill up the vacancies in the
Board
of
Management.
As
an
interim
arrangement, in the interest of the Society, a
rotational arrangement between the two
brothers for discharge of responsibilities as
Member and Vice President was directed for
equal duration during a term of five years.
The District and Sessions Judge, Agra along
with statutory members shall continue to
discharge obligations
of the Society in
accordance with the Rules. All the writ
petitions were disposed of with observations
and directions. (Para 48)