Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13846 (ALL)

M/S LALLOOJI TENT UDHYOG v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/40292/2026 · 2026-10-05

Ajit Kumar, Garima Prashad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 40292 of 2026 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J. 1. Heard Shri Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel for the Local Body concerned. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for following substantial reliefs- "I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing/commanding the respondents to pay the work payment of pending bills of Rs.3197132/-of M/S Lallooji Tent Udhyog, of the petitioner, as possible as early within a stipulated period. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing/commanding the respondents to take an appropriate decision on application dated 5.11.2024 with reasoned and speaking order for payment of work pending bills of the petitioner as possible as early within a stipulated period." 3. It is contended that the amount claimed by the petitioner stands admitted by the respondent authorities as per the Accounts Officers Report, but till date, no decision has been taken regarding payment, and the petitioner is thus being denied due payment for no justified reasons. 4. In the given facts and circumstances, it is also contended that the petitioner has moved an application on 5.11.2024 seeking an appropriate decision on its pending claim which has also remained pending Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prakash Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vineet Sankalp M/S Lallooji Tent Udhyog .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) consideration by the authorities. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records. 6. Since, the petitioner claims that the amount has been admitted and it is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner was awarded a contract, we do not find any justification for the respondents to keep the petitioner's application dated 05.11.2024 pending. Hence, we direct the respondent authority, namely, the respondent no. 2 to decide the pending claim of the petitioner raised in application dated 05.11.2024 within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 7. We further provide that in the event, after the decision is taken, the petitioner's claim is found to be rightful and genuine, any amount found payable to the petitioner by the authority concerned shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of such decision, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount so determined to be payable from the date it became due till the date of actual payment. October 6, 2026 Kuldeep WRIC No. 40292 of 2026 2 (Garima Prashad,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad