HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 48510 of 2013 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 and Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding directing the respondents to pay the due bills of the petitioner pending before them forthwith, which were submitted after completion of construction work and handing over the building to the authority concerned. (ii). Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii). Award cost of writ petition to the petitioners throughout." 3. Though, in the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for payment of certain money for completing the work under a contract in the year 2012 but the writ petition reveals that no agreement was filed by the petitioner alongwith the record. 4. This Court vide Order dated 07.10.2017 directed the learned counsel for the petitioners to place the contract entered into between the parties before the Court. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Vikram Yadav, Anil Tiwari, Ashish Kumar Singh, Kabeer Tiwari, Subhash Chandra Maurya Counsel for Respondent(s) : Q.H.Siddiqui, Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Vimlesh Kumar Rai Shree Jee Trading Company And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P.And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not file any agreement or contract entered into between the parties as directed by this Court vide Order dated 07.10.2017. Thereafter, on 15.02.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that he wants to amend the writ petition. Accordingly, this Court on 15.02.2018 passed the following order:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners wants to amend the writ petition. As prayed list after three weeks. In the meantime amendment application, if any, may be filed. " 6. The petitioners did not amend the writ petition rather filed supplementary affidavit annexing therewith certain documents namely copy of supply orders/work orders, measurement book and some other documents which has been obtained by him under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner in the writ petition has not specified the amount which the petitioner claims from the respondent-Jal Nigam. 7. Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent-Jal Nigam has filed supplementary counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner has been paid all the amount and nothing is due against the petitioner by the respondents. However, it is stated in paragraph No.6 of the supplementary counter affidavit that against the work orders Nos.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17, an amount of Rs.11,031/- was due to the petitioner which has been paid by the respondents vide cheque No.145707 dated 10.08.2017 which the petitioner refused to accept. According to the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit, besides above, no amount is due as all the payments have been made to the petitioner. 8. The petitioner has not specified the amount in the writ petition as well as supplementary affidavit which he is entitled to receive from the respondents. Further, the respondents have also denied the fact that any amount is due to the petitioner from them except the amount of Rs.11,031/- for which they have issued a cheque No.145707 dated 10.08.2017. 9. Since the payment of the amount is disputed by the respondents, therefore, the question as to whether what amount the petitioner is entitled to receive from the respondents under the contract is a question of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy under law. However, it is provided that in case WRIC No. 48510 of 2013 2 the petitioner is willing to accept the amount of Rs.11,031/- which has been paid to the petitioner vide cheque No.145707 dated 10.08.2017, the petitioner may approach the respondent No.4 and he shall pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date he approaches the respondent No.4. September 16, 2025 SS WRIC No. 48510 of 2013 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad