Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132524-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26270 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Deepak Electricals Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Keshav Kumar Srivastava,Saurav Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Vakalatnama, filed by Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel for respondent Jal Nigam, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent - Jal Nigam and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "(i) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent no. 5 to release the payment of balance amount of Rs. 5,39,040.74/- in favour of the petitioner alongwith interest as applicable within a period to be fixed by this Court." 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was awarded a tender for installing pumping station. It is submitted that on satisfactorily completion of the tender work, contract amount of Rs. 13,26,887/- was paid to the petitioner. It is further submitted that since there was a delay of about more than one year in payment of the tender amount, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of the aforesaid amount which comes to around Rs. 1 lakh. It is further submitted that during continuance of the aforesaid tender, the petitioner had also supplied certain material to the respondent Jal Nigam which was worth Rs. 4,22,100/- which has not been paid to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has obtained the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 which is enclosed at page No. 50 of the paper book and it is evident from serial No. 2 of the reply given under Right to Information Act that the respondent Jal Nigam does not dispute the supply of material, rather it says that the record relating to the said supply is not available. Thus, it is contended that since the aforesaid amount is admitted amount, the established amount be granted to the petitioner. 5. Per contra Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel for the Jal Nigam, submits that the material which is alleged to have been supplied by the petitioner, is prior to date of issuance of the aforesaid tender notice and in such an event, it could not be possible for the petitioner to supply any material prior to issuance of the tender notice for the same and thus the claim of the petitioner for supply of material is frivolous. He further contends that there was no delay in payment of tender amount and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the aforesaid amount. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the question as to whether any material was supplied by the petitioner and there was a delay in payment of tender amount is the question of fact that can be decided only on the basis pleadings and evidence on record and this Court may refrain from granting the relief, prayed for by the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that the tender amount has been paid to the petitioner. The only grievance of the petitioner is that since there was delay in payment of the tender amount, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest. 7. In deciding the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest, the first question arises as to whether the respondent Jal Nigam delayed in making payment of the tender amount. This question is the question of fact that can be decided only on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record. Therefore, in such circumstances, this Court cannot grant the aforesaid relief to the petitioner in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. So far as the supply of material is concerned, this Court finds that the question as to whether the petitioner had supplied the material to respondent Jal Nigam or not is also a question of fact and requires consideration of evidence led by the parties and the petitioner has to establish that the material was supplied by it and despite supply of material, the respondent did not make payment. The aforesaid question is also the question of fact and cannot be determined by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. Thus for the reasons above, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available to him in law. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Vandana (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J) (Saral Srivastava,J. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad