Surya Constructions v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant performed additional work for the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (UPJN) during the Magh Mela 2008-2009 pursuant to an express sanction. Although the work was completed to UPJN’s satisfaction, the agreed payment of Rs 113.29 lakhs was never released.

On 21-10-2013, the Allahabad High Court directed the appellant to submit a representation for payment, and on 07-02-2014 (in a contempt petition) required UPJN to answer that representation. UPJN’s reply dated 22-03-2014 admitted the liability but claimed the requisite funds had not been received from the Government/Mela Administration.

Subsequently, the appellant filed Writ Civil No. 25216 of 2014 before the High Court. By judgment dated 02-05-2014, the High Court dismissed the writ on the ground that “disputed questions of fact” existed and that the claim arose out of a contract. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by way of the present appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable to compel a State instrumentality to pay an undisputed contractual amount.
2. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the premise that disputed questions of fact existed when the liability was, in fact, admitted.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court observed that UPJN’s own communication unequivocally admitted the debt, negating the High Court’s finding of any factual dispute. Because the liability was undisputed and the delay was solely attributable to UPJN’s failure to obtain funds from the Government, the Court found the conduct arbitrary.

Invoking the principle in ABL International, the Court reaffirmed that Article 226 jurisdiction is available even in matters arising out of contract when State instrumentalities act arbitrarily. Accordingly, the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition was declared “wholly incorrect.”

Given that the work had been completed in 2009 and payment had been withheld for several years, the Court deemed immediate relief necessary.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF: Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam is directed to pay the entire admitted amount to the appellant within four weeks along with interest at 6% per annum.

Implications: The decision underscores that State entities cannot evade payment of undisputed contractual dues by citing internal financial constraints, and that writ jurisdiction remains available to correct such arbitrary conduct. No new legal doctrine is created, but the judgment fortifies the enforceability of ABL International in analogous contractual disputes with the State.