The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Writ Petition involving payments relating to contractual work and held that parties have to approach the civil courts or go for arbitration in areas of contractual disputes.

The petition before the High Court had been filed under 226 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent State to release the payment for the contractual work done by the petitioner. The work orders in question had been given by the Respondent-Project Manager, Slum Urban Development Authority, on behalf of the State Government under the contract.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit & Justice Shekhar B. Saraf asserted, “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.”

Advocate Girish Chandra represented the Petitioner while Standing Counsel Mukul Tripathi represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

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'. This scheme was launched by the Union Government for urban poor under the slum development program. The petitioner completed the construction work within the stipulated period and the houses were handed over to allottees in multiple phases.

Bills amounting to Rs 15,81,540 were submitted which were duly scrutinized and passed by the concerned authorities. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that a security deposit of Rs. 96,000 remained unreleased. Multiple representations were made by the petitioner but payment remained pending. The unit in charge informed that old payments couldn’t be processed as per state-level authorities. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioner had not been able to bring on record any document wherein the respondent authorities admitted that a particular sum was owed to them.

Referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in Orissa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Bharati Industries reported in (2005),Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil reported in (2000) & Union of India v. Puna Hinda reported in (2021), the Bench held, “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.”

Thus, the Bench dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: M/s Annapurna Construction Co. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:7676-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Girish Chandra

Respondents: Standing Counsel Mukul Tripathi, Advocate Vivek Saran

Click here to read/download Order



Allahabad High CourtJustice Vipin Chandra DixitJustice Shekhar B. SarafWrit JurisdictionWrit of MandamusArticle 226 of ConstitutionContracts

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.