Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86668-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16511 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Pandit Realtor Private Ltd. And Another Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikash Parishad And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Vineet Pandey Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents to ensure the payment of petitioners, which was restrained by the respondents admitted in the letter dated 19.06.2024 issued by the respondents. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents not to pressurize to the petitioners for removing the defects after 3 years for completion of work according to GPW Form 9. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents to make the payment to the petitioners, which was admitted by the respondents. 2. Petitioner No.1 is a private limited company. It was awarded a contract for construction of 512 LIG flats by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. The agreement between the parties is dated 6 February 2014. The General Conditions of Contract contained in GPW Form 9 are applicable to the contract. According to the petitioners, they completed the work under the contract in the year 2018. A completion certificate with respect to 1370 flats was issued by the Parishad on 31.12.2018 and it also included 512 LIG flats constructed by the petitioner- Company. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents despite the petitioners having completed the entire project did not prepare the final bill and demanded interest from the petitioners on the amount paid as advance. The petitioners challenged the same by filing Writ -C No. 20963 of 2020. Initially, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners on 27.01.2021 but subsequently, the respondents sent a communication to the petitioners on 02.09.2022 that they would resolve the issues provided the writ petition is withdrawn. Consequently, according to the petitioners, they withdrew the writ petition on 05.09.2022. 4. According to the petitioner-Company, as per final bill, further sum of Rs.1,39,67,209/- was payable to the petitioner-Company out of which only 68,00,000/- was released in its favour and the remaining amount was wrongly with- held. According to the petitioner, the same was done on basis of a communication sent by Executive Engineer, Construction Division-III to Executive Engineer, Construction Division-II. 5. We have gone through the impugned communication and find that, in fact, it is a report submitted to Executive Engineer, Construction Division-II in pursuance of his letter dated 28.05.2024. It contains details of different agreements with different builders, who were given task of construction of EWS flats. It also contains report in relation to the petitioner-Company. According to it, sum of Rs.43,78,03,458/- had already been paid to the petitioner-Company. Out of remaining amount of Rs.1,39,67,209/- with-held under different heads, another sum of Rs.68,00,000/- was released in favour of the petitioner-Company for the maintenance work and the remaining amount is Rs.71,67,209/-. 6. Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-Parishad has placed on record the instructions received from the Parishad. According to it, the Parishad under Clause 1 of GPW-9 applicable to the contract was entitled to with-hold security money for twelve months from the date of completion of work or after payment of the final bill whichever is later. Under Clause 40, the contractor is liable to rectify the defects in the building on account of leakage or seepage in RCC work, flooring, electrical wiring etc., within three years of completion of the work and if the contractor fails to rectify the defects, the security of 1 per cent or contract amount, whichever is available, would be forfeited and the contractor shall also be liable to be blacklisted. He, placing reliance on a communication dated 31.12.2022 (annexure-11), submitted that the petitioner-Company was repeatedly apprised of the defects and was requested to cure the same but it did not take any remedial steps. It is submitted that the defect liability period was three years from the date of preparation of final bill on 08.12.2022 and, therefore, the said period subsists up till 08.12.2025. It is urged that in such circumstances, the Parishad is well within its rights to with-hold the remaining amount. He submits that it would be released only after the defects are removed. 7. It is evident from the stand taken by the Parishad that there is serious dispute between the parties in respect of removal of defects and the defect liability period. The Parishad has with-held certain amount ostensibly in exercise of its rights under the contract. We observe that under Clause 32(c) of GPW-9, there is provision for arbitration of every dispute, difference or question arising out of or in respect of the contract between the parties. 8. As the issues involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact, therefore, we are not inclined to examine the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction and leave it open to the petitioners to seek arbitration, as provided under the contract, if so advised, or avail any other remedy, as may be available under law. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty to the petitioners. 10. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on merits and any claim made by the petitioners before any forum would be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in the instant order. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Mukesh Kr. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad