DWARIKA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties. Being aggrieved by the non -payment of dues of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2.50 lacs, the instant writ petition has been filed on the ground that the offer of the petitioner was accepted as his bid was low than other contractors. Further, he was permitted to start work. However, without any rhyme and reason, the Chief Development Officer has abruptly demolished the construction done by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of the aforesaid amount. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court vide order dated 20.9.2013 directed the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions from the Chief Development Officer as to why the order passed by the District Magistrate has not been complied with and the petitioner has been denied the dues in question.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the Chief Development Officer has filed his personal affidavit. In para. 4 of the affidavit; he stated as under:

(3.) IN a recent decision of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Apex Court has held that the making of patently false statement on oath by the appellant tenure -holders is amazing. The appellants efforts to mislead the authorities and the Courts got transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and the Supreme Court cannot, but treated as reprehensible.