WRIC/26262/2023 of M/S RAM KRIPAL SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 16 September 2026

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer:- "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondents to make payment of the admitted withheld amount to the petitioner of work being done by him, which is duly admitted by the department copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.5 and 6 to this writ petition, within the stipulated time along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of completion of work."

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it is stated that though the petitioner has completed the work in the year 2013 but the demand was raised by him for the first time in the department vide letter dated 02.02.2023 i.e. after about 10 years. It is further admitted between the counsel for the parties that in the agreement executed between the parties, there is an arbitration clause.

3. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that controversy involved in the present writ petition did not resolved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. In a similar matter, this Court in its judgment and order dated 24.02.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.11544 of 2014 (M/s R.S. Associates through Proprietor geeta Singh vs. State of U.P. and others has observed that:- Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C M/S Ram Kripal Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

"These are purely contractual matters and we are not inclined to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this regard. Whether the work under the contract has been satisfactorily carried out; whether the rates quoted are in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the applicable schedule of rates; whether the work has been carried out properly are issues which have to be addressed, among other questions, by the competent authority before an appropriate decision is taken. The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot appropriately be exercised in such matters. The remedy of the contractor, if he is aggrieved by non payment, would be to either file an ordinary civil suit or if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, to invoke the terms of the agreement."

5. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to either file an ordinary civil suit or if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, to invoke the terms of the agreement. September 17, 2026 Swati WRIC No. 26262 of 2023 2 (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad