Contractor Cannot Revive Stale Claims by Sending Letters: Allahabad HC Dismisses Mandamus Writ for 2016-17 Flood Works Dues

The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench dismissed a mandamus writ for unpaid dues from 2016-17 flood protection work, holding limitation cannot be extended by one-sided correspondence and disputed monetary claims against the State require a civil suit.

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a Division Bench judgment delivered on 6 July 2026, dismissed a writ petition filed by a contractor seeking mandamus to compel the State of Uttar Pradesh's Irrigation and Water Resources Department to release outstanding payments for flood protection work executed in 2016–17. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that the claim had become stale well beyond the three-year limitation period, that sending reminder letters in a “one way traffic” cannot extend or pause the clock of limitation, and that disputed factual questions about the very existence and quantum of dues could not be resolved in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Dispute Before the Lucknow Bench

The petitioner, Janardan Singh, claimed outstanding dues for work carried out under contracts awarded by the Flood Works Division, District Gonda, for the protection of the Charsari Embankment. The work was completed during 2016–17. Over the following years, he wrote repeatedly to the authorities seeking payment. His most recent representations were dated 10 August 2022 and 25 February 2023.

He approached the Lucknow Bench under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the outstanding amount along with interest. The respondents were the State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary, Irrigation Water Resources Department, and four others. The State was represented by the Chief Standing Counsel.

At the hearing, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State disputed both the amount claimed and the authenticity or effect of the correspondence relied upon by the petitioner. The State had never, in any of the communications, admitted or acknowledged any liability towards the petitioner. The only documents the petitioner placed on record were copies of his own letters written over the past ten years.

Why the Court Found the Claim Barred by Limitation

The Division Bench held that the claim had become a stale claim. More than three years had elapsed from the date the cause of action arose, and during that period the petitioner had not taken any legal steps to assert his rights. The court drew a clear distinction between writing letters to the government and taking steps that have legal effect on limitation.

The bench applied the principle that once limitation begins to run, it cannot be stopped or extended by sending one-sided communications to the opposite party. The court specifically held that

The bench relied on two Supreme Court decisions to support this reasoning. In M/S B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence (MANU/SC/0601/2023), the Supreme Court had affirmed that a party must remain vigilant of its statutory limitation period and cannot extend it through correspondence. In Secunderabad Cantonment Board v. M/S B. Ramachandraiah and Sons (AIR 2021 SC 1391), the Supreme Court had held that a reminder letter does not extend the period of limitation.

The court found that neither of these precedents could be distinguished on the facts before it. There was no acknowledgement of liability by the State at any point. The petitioner's own letters were the entirety of the record he had produced.

Disputed Facts and the Limits of Article 226 in Contractual Money Claims

Beyond limitation, the bench identified a second, independent ground for declining jurisdiction: the petitioner's claim involved disputed questions of fact. The State had contested both the amount owed and the validity of the petitioner's correspondence. Resolving these disputes would require examination and cross-examination of witnesses and a detailed assessment of evidence — a process unsuited to writ proceedings.

The court examined the law on the maintainability of a writ petition for money claims arising out of contract. It referred to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others v. Dolly Das (1999) 4 SCC 450, where the Supreme Court held that invoking writ jurisdiction requires the involvement of a constitutional or statutory right. In the absence of such a right, Article 226 cannot be used to claim money for breach of contract, tort, or otherwise. That principle applies even when the claim is made against the State or its instrumentalities.

The bench also referred to Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India and others (2015) 7 SCC 728, in which the Supreme Court, after setting out the circumstances in which a writ petition in a contractual dispute may be maintainable, had held that where facts are disputed and can only be tested by taking detailed evidence, the court under Article 226 should direct the aggrieved party to avail the alternate remedy of a civil suit.

On the facts before the Lucknow Bench, the petitioner's claim was precisely of this kind: a pure contractual money claim, no statutory or constitutional right asserted, liability disputed, quantum disputed, and the correspondence itself in dispute. The court found that these characteristics, taken together, placed the matter squarely outside the writ jurisdiction.

Outcome

The Division Bench declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed Writ-C No. 4800 of 2026 on 6 July 2026. No direction was issued regarding the payment of dues. The judgment was authored by Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.