Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner, Srinivas Rao Nayani, entered into a formal professional agreement with Respondent No. 3 (Chief Engineer, HQ-1, Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department, Lucknow) on April 22, 2022, which was subsequently executed and signed on May 5, 2022.
  • The contract was executed for the specialized provision of consultancy services for the Road Asset Management System.
  • As per the explicit terms of the contract, the agreed contract price was fixed at a total valuation of ₹1,08,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eight Lakhs Only), broken down into a monthly consultancy fee of ₹3,00,000/- spanning a defined duration of 36 months, with applicable Goods and Services Tax (GST) extra.
  • The petitioner commenced the active rendering of consultancy services from the date of the signed agreement, May 5, 2022, and consistently raised and forwarded professional bills to the respondent department every subsequent month.
  • Despite the performance of services and generation of monthly invoices, the respondent department failed to clear the dues, resulting in absolute non-payment of salary and consultancy fees starting from the month of May 2022 onwards.
  • Aggrieved by the continuous financial withholding, the petitioner submitted formal administrative representations to the competent authorities on October 12, 2022, and November 2, 2022, seeking immediate redressal and release of payments, which yielded no active response from the department.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for the enforcement of purely contractual financial obligations, specifically for the payment of outstanding consultancy fees and arrears of salary from a State department.
  2. Whether the High Court can bypass entering into the deep factual merits of a commercial-cum-service dispute and instead direct a public authority to discharge its administrative obligations by deciding pending representations via a reasoned and speaking order.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The learned counsel for the petitioner, Syed Anzar Husain and Faisal Husain, argued that a valid, binding, and executed agreement existed between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 for professional consultancy services.
  • It was strongly contended that the petitioner fully performed his part of the contractual obligations by providing Road Asset Management System consultancy starting May 5, 2022, and meticulously submitted monthly bills for processing.
  • The petitioner highlighted a profound breach of natural justice and fair play, emphasizing that "not even a single penny" had been disbursed by the respondents for months together, causing immense financial distress.
  • The counsel pressed that despite the submission of detailed statutory representations dated October 12, 2022, and November 2, 2022, the state authorities maintained total administrative inertia.
  • Alternatively, the petitioner prayed that if the Court chose not to directly order the monetary recovery under writ jurisdiction, a strict time-bound direction should be issued to the Chief Engineer to objectively decide the pending representations on merit.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The learned State Counsel (C.S.C.) vehemently opposed the maintainability of the writ petition, raising a preliminary objection regarding the nature of the relief sought.
  • The State argued that the dispute fundamentally arises out of a non-statutory commercial contract and amounts to a monetary claim for recovery of arrears.
  • It was submitted that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an alternative remedy or a substitute for a civil suit for money recovery, and therefore, no direct mandamus or order for payment of arrears could be legally issued by the High Court.
  • However, regarding the petitioner's alternative prayer for an administrative decision on the pending representations, the State Counsel conceded and stated they had no objection if the department was directed to evaluate the claims dynamically within a specified timeframe.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Single Bench of Hon’ble Manish Kumar, J., heard both the sides and comprehensively perused the judicial record of the case.
  • The Court explicitly chose not to enter into the factual merits or commercial complexities of the contractual dispute between the private consultant and the PWD department.
  • Balancing the maintainability objection raised by the State with the administrative failure to act on representations, the High Court disposed of the writ petition finally at the admission stage itself.
  • The Court issued a strict directive to Respondent No. 3 (Chief Engineer, HQ-1, Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department, Lucknow) to personally look into the matter and take a definitive decision on the petitioner's pending representations dated October 12, 2022, and November 2, 2022.
  • The High Court mandated that the decision must be executed by passing a "speaking and reasoned order" strictly in accordance with the prevailing law.
  • A strict compliance timeline was set, ordering the authority to pass this final order within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of the Court's order is served upon the department.

Important Clarification

This judgment highlights an important procedural strategy in Indian administrative law. While the apex courts have repeatedly affirmed (e.g., in Radhakrishna Agarwal) that purely contractual, non-statutory financial claims cannot be recovered through a direct writ of mandamus under Article 226, the High Courts routinely safeguard citizens from bureaucratic silence. By directing authorities to pass a "speaking and reasoned order," the Court forces the State to put its defense or justification on record. If the department wrongfully rejects the claim in its speaking order, the petitioner then receives a fresh, distinct cause of action to challenge that specific administrative order under Article 226, leveraging the doctrine of public accountability and fairness against arbitrary state action (ABL International framework).

Section Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Constitutional provision governing the power of High Courts to issue certain writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
  • Writ Jurisdiction for Contractual Violations: Invoked by the petitioner to seek standard administrative remedies against arbitrary non-payment by a State instrument.

Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783143004_490compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content.The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.