Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39496 (ALL)

HARIHAR LAL SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. AND OTHERS

WRIC/27714/2012 · 2025-09-10

Amitabh Kumar Rai, Saral Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 27714 of 2012 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing/commanding to the respondent no.-4 to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,30,390/- to the petitioner fourth with. (b). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing/ commanding to the respondent no.-4 to decide the representation dated 16-3-2012 with reasoned and speaking order within a time bound period. (c). Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. (d). Award cost of the petition to be paid to the petitioner." 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had carried out certain works of Gram Panchayat, Harriya District-Basti, for which he is entitled to Rs.2,30,390/-. 4. In the counter affidavit, it has been asserted that the petitioner has been paid the entire money for the work which he had done and there is nothing due against the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : J.K. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anand Kumar Srivastava Harihar Lal Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Since the respondents in the instant case do not admit the liability of the amount which the petitioner claims, therefore, the dispute in the present case involves question of fact which can be adjudicated only on the basis of pleadings and assessment of evidence, and therefore, no relief as prayed for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is granted to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available in law. September 11, 2025 SS WRIC No. 27714 of 2012 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad