- (1.) Heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Q.H. Siddiqui for the respondent-Jal Nigam. The petitioner is a construction company that was awarded a contract by the U.P. Jal Nigam for constructing an over head tank at a particular village. The petitioner's tender was accepted and the petitioner contends that according to him the work has been completed and the amount is due which has not been paid to the petitioner. There is a dispute with regard to a payment of Rs. 38,500/- about which an allegation has been made in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit which has been denied by the petitioner in rejoinder. This Court on 30.9.2013 passed the following order: Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner has completed some work and certain amount is due to be paid to the petitioner which shall be paid "immediately after receiving further funds, the pending bills of the petitioner will be paid." In paragraph 7, it is stated that the amount of Rs. 38,500/- has been paid to the petitioner on 26.3.2011, which the petitioner has denied in the rejoinder-affidavit. Let the respondent No. 2 U.P. Jal Nigam file a detailed affidavit stating as to what amount is due to be paid to the petitioner, which is not being paid to it because of paucity of funds and what was the mode of payment of Rs. 38,500/- to the petitioner on 26.3.2011. The respondent may file such affidavit within two weeks. List on 23rd October 2013. Order Date: 30.9.2013
(2.) Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
(3.) The issue as to the maintainability of the writ petition being involved for such payment, learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to assist the Court with the judgments in this regard. Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has cited the following judgments, namely, ABL International Ltd. and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others, 2004 3 SCC 553, Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011 2 SCC 439 and Ashok Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 9 ADJ 448, in support of his contention that where an amount which is due to a contractor from a public authority discharging sovereign functions then a writ petition would be maintainable for a direction to the said authority to ensure payment of the amount which is due and is admitted and not disputed.;