Avtar Construction Through Its Prop. Pramod Kumar v. Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. And Ors

1. Heard the petitioner, who appears in person, and Sri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 21.05.2020 passed by the Director, Mandi Parishad, Lucknow contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pass order afresh after calling measurement report from independent agency like P.W.D. etc. after measurement of the depth of the road and its cross checked by measurement book in the interest of justice."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a registered Contractor with Mandi Parishad since 2017. A tender was floated by the Mandi Parishad for repairing of connecting road Kursi Road - Aadhar Khera Canal Culvert to Bhagatpurwa Mandir. A repairing work was to be done for a 2 WRIC No. 10647 of 2020 length of 4000 meters which was allotted to him. The petitioner completed 2600 meters repairing work on the said road and on the remaining 1400 meters he had put his bolders/gitis/ballasts, but such area fell within the jurisdiction of Forest Department and it stopped the work. The petitioner could not complete repairing of 1400 meters of the road in question. The petitioner was not made payment and penalty was also imposed on him. The petitioner raised a grievance on 26.11.2019 to the Director, Mandi Parishad. When such representation was not heeded, he preferred Writ Petition, bearing Writ Petition No. 3102 of 2020(M/B), which was disposed by this Court by directing the respondent no.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order was produced before him. The petitioner was called to appear in person for an on the spot inspection to be conducted on 16.03.2020. The Joint Director conducted on the spot inspection and submitted a report on 20.03.2020 based solely on the report of the Junior Engineer that only 540 cubic meters of stone ballasts were used out of 1260 cubic meters. The petitioner was issued a letter asking for his objections on the report of the Joint Director. The petitioner raised objection that the authorities are acting in a biased manner and that digging for the purpose of measuring the thickness of the layer put by the petitioner was done only at two spots and Junior Engineer has misled the Joint Director by indicating incorrect measurement in his measurement book. The petitioner's objections were not considered and the impugned order passed. The depth of the road i.e. the thickness of the layer put by the petitioner for repairing the road was not measured correctly. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

4. Sri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondents wherein the contents of the impugned order have been reiterated that on actual on the spot inspection done twice by the officials of the Mandi Parishad, it was found that only 2600 meters of the road was repaired, 1400 meters of road was not repaired. The work which was to be completed up to 16.03.2018 was in fact not completed within time, and therefore, the fine/penalty was imposed upon the petitioner. On representation of the petitioner being filed, fresh inspection was carried 3 WRIC No. 10647 of 2020 out on the basis of which Director, Mandi Parishad has passed the order impugned, but has taken a sympathetic view that since the petitioner is not to blame for not being able to complete the work in time due to lack of permission by the Forest Department, penalty should not be charged. The on the spot inspection which was carried out also did not find any stone ballasts put on 1400 meters of road which fell within the jurisdiction of the Forest Department, therefore, material which was not found on the spot could not be paid for by the Mandi Parishad.

5. We have gone through the order impugned and also the contents of the writ petition and the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is disputing the fact of the respondents not finding any stone ballasts as having been laid on 1400 meters of road which fell within the forest area. It is his case that he had put the stone ballasts, but due to stoppage of work by the forest employees, the general public/local residents of the area had taken away the stone ballasts and he has suffered a loss.

6. It has also been submitted by the petitioner, who appears in person, that he was not responsible for delay in the work being completed as has also been held by the Director in his order impugned, therefore, penalty could not have been charged.

7. The question before this Court is whether the respondents can be compelled to make payment of work which was not done by the petitioner or to reimburse him for the loss of stone ballasts, which the petitioner allegedly put on 1400 meters of road, which fell within forest area and of which no repair work could be done because of objection by the forest employees.

8. The respondents have measured the material used construction/repair on 2600 meters of road. Payment can be made only of area which was repaired/constructed. It was the petitioner's duty to remove the stone ballasts from the disputed 1400 meters forest area, if the forest employees had objected to the same, it was his construction material and he ought to have taken care to remove and keep it safely. The Mandi Parishad can not be saddled with the responsibility of payment 4 WRIC No. 10647 of 2020 of stone ballasts, which were not found by them on spot inspections being carried out.

10. The petitioner, who appears in person, disputes on the spot inspections, he says that no inspections were carried out and his objections were not considered.

11. The petitioners raises the disputed questions of fact, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to approach the Civil Court.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) October 17, 2025 Darpan Sharma DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard the petitioner, who appears in person, and Sri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 21.05.2020 passed by the Director, Mandi Parishad, Lucknow contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pass order afresh after calling measurement report from independent agency like P.W.D. etc. after measurement of the depth of the road and its cross checked by measurement book in the interest of justice."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a registered Contractor with Mandi Parishad since 2017. A tender was floated by the Mandi Parishad for repairing of connecting road Kursi Road - Aadhar Khera Canal Culvert to Bhagatpurwa Mandir. A repairing work was to be done for a 2 WRIC No. 10647 of 2020 length of 4000 meters which was allotted to him. The petitioner completed 2600 meters repairing work on the said road and on the remaining 1400 meters he had put his bolders/gitis/ballasts, but such area fell within the jurisdiction of Forest Department and it stopped the work. The petitioner could not complete repairing of 1400 meters of the road in question. The petitioner was not made payment and penalty was also imposed on him. The petitioner raised a grievance on 26.11.2019 to the Director, Mandi Parishad. When such representation was not heeded, he preferred Writ Petition, bearing Writ Petition No. 3102 of 2020(M/B), which was disposed by this Court by directing the respondent no.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order was produced before him. The petitioner was called to appear in person for an on the spot inspection to be conducted on 16.03.2020. The Joint Director conducted on the spot inspection and submitted a report on 20.03.2020 based solely on the report of the Junior Engineer that only 540 cubic meters of stone ballasts were used out of 1260 cubic meters. The petitioner was issued a letter asking for his objections on the report of the Joint Director. The petitioner raised objection that the authorities are acting in a biased manner and that digging for the purpose of measuring the thickness of the layer put by the petitioner was done only at two spots and Junior Engineer has misled the Joint Director by indicating incorrect measurement in his measurement book. The petitioner's objections were not considered and the impugned order passed. The depth of the road i.e. the thickness of the layer put by the petitioner for repairing the road was not measured correctly. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

4. Sri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondents wherein the contents of the impugned order have been reiterated that on actual on the spot inspection done twice by the officials of the Mandi Parishad, it was found that only 2600 meters of the road was repaired, 1400 meters of road was not repaired. The work which was to be completed up to 16.03.2018 was in fact not completed within time, and therefore, the fine/penalty was imposed upon the petitioner. On representation of the petitioner being filed, fresh inspection was carried 3 WRIC No. 10647 of 2020 out on the basis of which Director, Mandi Parishad has passed the order impugned, but has taken a sympathetic view that since the petitioner is not to blame for not being able to complete the work in time due to lack of permission by the Forest Department, penalty should not be charged. The on the spot inspection which was carried out also did not find any stone ballasts put on 1400 meters of road which fell within the jurisdiction of the Forest Department, therefore, material which was not found on the spot could not be paid for by the Mandi Parishad.

5. We have gone through the order impugned and also the contents of the writ petition and the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is disputing the fact of the respondents not finding any stone ballasts as having been laid on 1400 meters of road which fell within the forest area. It is his case that he had put the stone ballasts, but due to stoppage of work by the forest employees, the general public/local residents of the area had taken away the stone ballasts and he has suffered a loss.

6. It has also been submitted by the petitioner, who appears in person, that he was not responsible for delay in the work being completed as has also been held by the Director in his order impugned, therefore, penalty could not have been charged.

7. The question before this Court is whether the respondents can be compelled to make payment of work which was not done by the petitioner or to reimburse him for the loss of stone ballasts, which the petitioner allegedly put on 1400 meters of road, which fell within forest area and of which no repair work could be done because of objection by the forest employees.

8. The respondents have measured the material used construction/repair on 2600 meters of road. Payment can be made only of area which was repaired/constructed. It was the petitioner's duty to remove the stone ballasts from the disputed 1400 meters forest area, if the forest employees had objected to the same, it was his construction material and he ought to have taken care to remove and keep it safely. The Mandi Parishad can not be saddled with the responsibility of payment 4 WRIC No. 10647 of 2020 of stone ballasts, which were not found by them on spot inspections being carried out.

10. The petitioner, who appears in person, disputes on the spot inspections, he says that no inspections were carried out and his objections were not considered.

11. The petitioners raises the disputed questions of fact, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to approach the Civil Court.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) October 17, 2025 Darpan Sharma DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench