Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106768-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16801 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Ramya Decorators Situated At Attawala Street Firozabad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Garg,Yash Garg Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tarun Agrawal Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 2. The following prayers have been made in the writ petition: - "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to take effective decision and immediately release the balance payment in favour of the petitioner in respect of the works done in pursuance of the works order dated 24.12.2022. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to take effective decision and release the payment in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the recommendation dated 30.08.2024 made by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure no. 5 to this writ petition)." 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was granted a works contract for carrying out some tentage work during Local Body Election 2022 at District Mainpuri. The petitioner successfully executed the work and submitted the bills. The total amount payable to the petitioner was Rs. 10,88,490/-, out of which, only rupees six lakhs has been paid so far and for the remaining amount, i.e. Rs. 4,88,490/-, despite there being a recommendation by Chief Development Officer/Incharge Officer, District Election Office, Local Bodies, Mainpuri dated 30.8.2024 in favour of the petitioner to respondent no. 2, the amount has not been released. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the payment could be released only after receipt of recommendation from the District Magistrate. 5. As the recommendation by Chief Development Officer vide letter dated 30.8.2024 appears to be in pursuance of some letter of respondent no. 2, therefore, in our opinion, in case any further report is required from District Magistrate, respondent no. 2 should call for the same and take appropriate decision, but it cannot be accepted that the matter would be kept pending for indefinite period. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2 to take decision in respect of the claim of the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order along with a fresh representation. In case any fresh report or recommendation is needed from the District Magistrate, respondent no. 2 shall call for the same within two weeks of communication of the instant order, so that he would be in a position to adhere to the timeline prescribed by the instant order. 7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M.N. Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Jaideep/- Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad