WWW.LIVELAW.
IN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2610 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29505 of 2014)
M/S SURYA CONSTRUCTIONS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Having heard learned counsel for all the parties, we
find that the present is a case in which payment for extra
work by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam has not been made though
such work was expressly sanctioned and done to their
satisfaction. The appellant before us has had to run from
pillar to post to get the money owed to them. By an order
dated 21.10.2013, the High Court asked the appellant to make
a representation and finally, in a contempt petition moved
on 07.02.2014, directed the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to
answer this representation. The representation so made was
answered by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
“Due to aforesaid facts and description it is clear
Date: 2019.03.13
17:24:52 IST
Reason:
that Rs.113.29 lacs has to be released by
Government/Mela Administration against the Budget
presented by U.P. Jal Nigam, Magh Mela 2008-09.
1
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2610 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29505 of 2014)
There is no money available under account of Magh
Mela 2008-09 of U.P. Jal Nigam. And could not
obtained the rest of amount from the Mela
Administration/Government. Therefore, payment
regarding M/s. Surya Construction, 323/3, Alopibagh,
Allahabad will be paid after availability of the
money from the Government.”
It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated
22.03.2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that
has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the
appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ
petition being Writ Civil No. 25216/2014, the impugned
judgment dated 02.05.2014 dismissed the writ petition
stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the
amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High
Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed
question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to
the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well
settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in
the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India [‘ABL International
Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of
India Ltd. and Others’ (2004 (3) SCC 553)].
This being the case and the work having been completed
long back in 2009, we direct the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to
make the necessary payment within a period of four weeks
from today. Given the long period of delay, interest at the
2
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2610 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29505 of 2014)
rate of 6 per cent per annum may also be awarded.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
…………………………………………………………………., J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
…………………………………………………………………., J.
[ VINEET SARAN ]
New Delhi;
March 08, 2019.
3
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2610 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29505 of 2014)
ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 29505/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-05-2014
in WC No. 25126/2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad)
M/S SURYA CONSTRUCTIONS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.)
Date : 08-03-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tripurari Ray, Adv.
Mr. Vikram D. Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Balwant Singh Billowria, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shashi Bharat Bhushan, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Shilpa Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv.
Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR
Mr. Y. R. Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Rinchen Wangmo, Adv.
Mr. Vedant Bharadwaj, Adv.
Mr. Amol Chitravanshi, Adv.
Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed
order.
Pending application stands disposed of.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed order is placed on the file.]
