DEVENDRA KUMAR AMORIYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Firms and Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam and the respondents had issued a NIT inviting tenders for execution of work of providing electrification/renovation and repairing in N.R.B./R.B. A/R., S/R., DEPOSIT/M.O.W. Work for E/M, Section Moti Mahal, Sub Division, Gwalior through tender No.13286. The petitioner had participated in the tender proceedings and was selected and, accordingly, an agreement Ex.P/3 was executed and work order was also issued on 26.2.2015 for execution of electrical work in District Court, Old High Court building. The total cost of the work was Rs.15,60,000/-. The work was executed by the petitioner which was duly verified by the respondents and the completion certificate was issued. Thereafter, after completion of work, the petitioner had made several representations for release of the remaining amount. It was submitted that accordingly, the Executive Engineer had written a letter dated 6.7.2017. Thereafter the respondent No.4, again issued a letter dated 9.6.2017 to the SDO and Sub-Engineer with regard to verification of the work and reminders were issued on 5.8.2017. Thereafter, the SDO and Sub-Engineer verified the work and submitted their report, however the respondent No.4 has failed to release the amount of Rs.3,13,740/-. Thereafter, the petitioner had issued a notice dated 13.9.2017, but the respondents are sitting tight over the amount of Rs.3,13,740/- causing serious and intentional harassment to the petitioner. Accordingly, it has been prayed that an amount of Rs.3,13,740/- be directed to be paid with 18% interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(3.) Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel of the State that the petition is not maintainable. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that the amount has not been paid, then that itself would give rise to a dispute. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching Madhyastham Adhikaran as the contract in question was a works contract. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the State has relied upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Makhija Construction Company, Indore v. Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore and Anr. reported in 2014(3) MPLJ 419.