Devagaya Enterprises v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42845 of 2023 Petitioner :- Devagaya Enterprises Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sayujya Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶1The instant petition is directed against the order dated

21.08.2023 passed by Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaunpur (respondent no.3) in compliance of the direction issued by this Court dated 31.10.2022.

¶2The petitioner is a proprietorship concern of one Smt. Neha Singh. She had entered into an agreement with the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad for providing Portable Compactors and Trucks for management of solid waste in the panchayat area. According to the petitioner, she had received Rs. 1,80,04,141/- from the respondent under the contract and the balance amount still payable to the petitioner is Rs. 57,95,859/-. The petitioner filed the previous writ petition with the grievance that the said amount was not being paid to her. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 31.10.2022 directing the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaunpur to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner. The Executive Officer has now passed the impugned order, wherein he has held that the only amount, which remained unpaid is Rs. 77,072/- and which too has been adjusted against transfer station operation fee for abandoning the work before end of contract period. Accordingly, the representation has been rejected.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to show that the impugned order is illegal as the amount still due and payable to the petitioner under the contract, has not been paid to her.

¶4The Nagar Palika Parishad has already taken a particular stand while deciding the representation and has thereby disputed the claim of the petitioner. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to examine the claim of money under a non-statutory contract in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is left open to the petitioner to seek such other remedy as may be advised.

¶5The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Donadi Ramesh, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, ACJ.) Order Date :- 12.12.2023 Noman High Court of Judicature at Allahabad