Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 150821 (ALL)

TAYALTECH, BILASPUR THRU. PROPRIETOR, AJAY AGRAWAL v. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, DRM OFFICE, LKO. AND OTHERS

WRIC/6748/2025 · 2025-07-17

Manish Kumar, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40832-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6748 of 2025 Petitioner :- Tayaltech, Bilaspur Thru. Proprietor, Ajay Agrawal Respondent :- Divisional Railway Manager, Drm Office, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahmood Alam,Mayank Dwivedi,Syed Saad Anwar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Let the petitioner implead Union of India appropriately during course of the day. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Ms. Aakansha Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 3. The petitioner alleges that as the demands of opposite party no. 5 for illegal gratification were not met, therefore, he has stopped payment of bills which were due in favour of the petitioner. He says that the work has been completed. 4. Without entering into the merits of the matter, especially as it is not very clear as to whether there is any formal agreement or contract between the parties or not, although there are certain documents which show that work was assigned to the petitioner, let the petitioner approach the Supervisory Authority of opposite party no. 5 i.e. opposite party no. 1 by way of a representation who shall get the matter inquired as to the entitlement of the petitioner for the payment dues as also the allegations made by him and take a decision in the matter at the earliest, say, within two months of submission of such representation. However, if a decision has already been taken and it is found that the petitioner is not entitle for payment, then, the same should be communicated to the petitioner by the opposite party no. 1. Thereafter, the petitioner will have to avail other remedies as disputed questions of fact as to whether work has been completed or not cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The writ petition is disposed of. [Manish Kumar, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Santosh/- Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench