Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 150223 (ALL)

M/S S.T. CONTRACTOR THRU. PROPRIETOR SHRI SUSHIL TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA THRU. SECY. MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS NEW DELHI AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/6482/2025 · 2025-07-11

Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39626-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6482 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S S.T. Contractor Thru. Proprietor Shri Sushil Tiwari Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs New Delhi And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. (Order on Amendment Application) 1. Amendment application filed today by learned Counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard. 3. This is an application seeking amendment in the array of parties in the writ petition which is supported with an affidavit. 4. The amendment application is allowed as the opposite parties have no objection. Let necessary amendments be carried out by petitioner during course of the day. (Order on Memo of Petition) 1. Heard. 2. Some contract was executed between the parties herein in 2016 in pursuance to which some construction work was done by the petitioner in lieu of which some amount was paid but in the year 2016 itself. Now, in the year 2025, the following relief has been sought by the petitioner:- "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2 & 3 to sanction the necessary funds and ensure the payment of outstanding dues in the tune of Rs.4,67,000/- (Rupees four lacs sixty seven thousand Only) along with interest @ 18% p.a. annexed as Annexure No.7. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite parties to decide the representation dated 22.04.2025 and 27.06.2025 as according to law within a specified period annexed as Annexure No.8. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may just, think fit and proper in the circumstances of this case. iv. Allow the writ petition with cost." 3. Ordinarily, if a suit for recovery was to be filed, the limitation would be three years. We see no reason to entertain this petition after so many years, in the year 2025. The petitioner may approach the opposite parties, if it is otherwise permissible in law. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 11.7.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench