Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11057 (UTT)

G S MATIYANI AND SONS v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMS/2625/2025 · 2025-09-09

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:7970 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2625/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Ketan Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner is a civil contractor. According to him, he was awarded a contract for construction of a Bridge. The grievance raised by petitioner is that the payment for the work done by him has not been released to him by the concerned Department. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:- (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the outstanding payment/admitted dues to the petitioner for the work done by petitioner in construction of a bridge over Gori River at Lumti along with annual interest at the rate of 18% till the date of actual payment; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to either foreclose the contract agreement after the measurement of fabrication works upon the ground erection of the bridge parts and release the payment of admitted dues to the petitioner along with interest and/or determine and pay the new rates in accordance with present SOR for the additional work/variation work as per the approved amended drawing and supply the copy of amended design of bridge to the petitioner for ground erection as per the amended drawing. 5. After arguing for a while, learned 2025:UHC:7970 counsel for the petitioner submits that Public Works Department has made a proposal for erecting the Bridge after strengthening it by adding more material and petitioner has submitted a counter offer. He submits that petitioner be permitted to make representation to the Competent Authority. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make representation to the Competent Authority. If petitioner makes such representation within ten days from today, the same shall be dealt with as per law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation along with certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 09.09.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d13695 12ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1 FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.09 06:27:13 -07'00' 2025:UHC:7970