The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench has dismissed a writ petition seeking payment for flood protection work completed nearly a decade ago, holding that repeated representations made by the contractor could not revive a time-barred claim. The Court also observed that disputed contractual claims involving questions of fact cannot ordinarily be decided in writ jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions for release of alleged outstanding dues for work carried out during the 2016-17 financial year for the protection of the Charsari Embankment in Gonda district. According to the petition, several representations had been submitted over the years requesting payment along with interest.
However, the State disputed both the alleged liability and the correspondence relied upon by the petitioner. The Bench noted that no document on record showed any acknowledgment of liability by the authorities.
Court's Observations
The Bench held that the claim had become stale because the petitioner failed to pursue legal remedies within the prescribed limitation period.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Court observed,
"Once the clock of limitation starts ticking, it cannot be stopped and/or extended by sending of letters/communications in a one way traffic."
It further clarified that reminder letters or unilateral representations do not extend the limitation period.
The judges also found that the dispute involved contested facts regarding the alleged dues. Referring to settled Supreme Court principles, the Court noted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally not available for enforcing contractual money claims where liability itself is disputed and evidence would be required. Such disputes are more appropriately decided through a civil suit.
Decision
Finding no acknowledged liability, no justification for extending limitation, and disputed questions of fact unsuitable for adjudication in writ proceedings, the Division Bench declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petition.
Case Details
Case Title: Janardan Singh v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Irrigation Water Resources Department & Others
Case Number: Writ - C No. 4800 of 2026
Judge: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
Decision Date: July 6, 2026
