Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Bal Mukund Tiwari, was entrusted with construction of a helipad and other miscellaneous work for the proposed arrival of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India at Aligarh, subject to approval of rate by the Chief Engineer (respondent no.2), pursuant to a proposal from the Executive Engineer (respondent no.3). The work was completed well within time, and a bill of Rs.49,94,061/- was prepared, but the dues went unpaid. This led to an earlier writ, WRIT-C No.21373 of 2023, disposed of on 21.7.2023 with a direction to the Chief Engineer to decide the petitioner's application expeditiously. The Chief Engineer's order dated 18.8.2023 admitted the liability but stated payment would follow only after the government released allocated funds. As the grievance remained unredressed, the petitioner filed the present writ seeking mandamus for payment of outstanding dues, retention money, revised GST at 18%, and interest on the contract price.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether mandamus lies to direct payment of a contractor's outstanding dues, retention money, revised GST at 18%, and interest, where the department has admitted the liability but withheld payment citing non-receipt of allocated government funds.
  2. Whether continued inaction despite an earlier court direction and an admission of liability warrants further judicial intervention.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The work was completed well within time and a bill of Rs.49,94,061/- was prepared, yet no payment was released.
  • Pursuant to the earlier writ, the Chief Engineer's order dated 18.8.2023 admitted the liability but linked payment to receipt of funds from the government.
  • Despite this admission, no payment has been made till date, necessitating a fresh mandamus for the outstanding dues, retention money, revised GST at 18%, and interest.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The order records the appearance of Shri R.M. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the State respondents, but sets out no specific submissions resisting the claim.
  • The only reason for non-payment on record is the one already stated in the Chief Engineer's order dated 18.8.2023 — that a requisition for fund allocation had been sent to the government.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Division Bench disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of U.P. to take all remedial measures and ensure payment is made to the petitioner.
  • Payment was directed to be made expeditiously, and preferably within six weeks from production of a certified copy of the order.
  • No independent finding was recorded on the correctness of the amount, the applicability of revised GST at 18%, or the interest claimed; the order proceeds on the liability already admitted by the Chief Engineer.

Important Clarification

  • Where a department has admitted its payment liability but withholds disbursement citing pending fund allocation, the writ court may escalate the direction to a higher authority — here the Principal Secretary — rather than confining relief to the officer who passed the earlier order.
  • The order compels expeditious payment of an admitted liability; it does not lay down any principle on the rate or applicability of GST on works contracts.

Sections Involved

  • The order does not cite any specific provision of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. "Revised GST at 18%" appears only as a component of the outstanding contract dues claimed in the relief clause, not independently examined by the Court.
  • The petition was maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the writ jurisdiction for a mandamus.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary, PWD, U.P. to ensure payment of the outstanding dues within six weeks, without any independent adjudication on the quantum, the GST component, or the interest claimed.

Related Case Laws

This site has covered other Allahabad High Court orders on mandamus petitions for release of amounts withheld by state departments pending fund allocation. Readers researching enforcement of admitted contractual liabilities against government departments may find those posts useful for comparison, though each order turns on its own facts.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
  • Case No.: WRIT - C No. 35183 of 2023
  • Case Title: Bal Mukund Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
  • Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:233020-DB
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. and Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
  • Date of Order: 8.12.2023
  • Counsel for Petitioner: Bidhan Chandra Rai
  • Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C. (Shri R.M. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel)

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (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.