VED PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner admittedly is a contractor. Respondent No. 3, as back as in 2016, had floated a contract and had invited the tenders for awarding the work of the balance tile floor, ceiling work in the inspection house at Mahuwa Khera Ganj, block Kashipur District U.S. Nagar, in 4th Sub Division, Kashipur, Division Udham Singh Nagar. The total cost of the contract was estimated to be Rs. 26,96,000/-. The work contract being Contract No. 26/EE/2016-17 dated 27.06.2016 was executed and awarded in favour of the petitioner on 27.06.2016.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the contract, after its commencement of work on 27.06.2016, the same was satisfactorily completed on 19.09.2016, and as per his case in the writ petition, he submits that a total amount of Rs. 30,38,608/- is due to be paid to him, which according to him is not a disputed amount and in that eventuality, the writ petition would be tenable for issuing an appropriate writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents for the payment of admitted amount.

(3.) This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is an admitted amount, and hence a writ of mandamus could be issued, this Court is constrained to accept the tenacity of the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the reason being that the work completion took place way back on 19.09.2016, even if at all there was no dispute with regard to the payment of the amount as the learned counsel for the petitioner contends in his argument, in that eventuality, he was expected to approach the Court within a reasonable time frame. There is an inordinate delay of more than four years. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was filing representations and that is why he could not approach the Court earlier.