2005 (11) TMI 495 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the judgment passed by High Court - Non- application of mind - directed appellant-Corporation to pay to the respondent no. 1 a sum of ₹ 8.5 lakhs within a period of three months from the date of order with default stipulation that in case of non-payment the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. after three months - HELD THAT - A bare perusal of the High Court's judgment shows that there was clear non- application of mind. On one hand the High Court observed that the disputed questions cannot be gone into a writ petition. It was also noticed that essence of dispute was breach of contract. After coming to the conclusions the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition. Surprisingly, the High Court proceeded to examine the case solely on the writ petitioner's assertion and on a very curious reasoning that though the appellant-Corporation claimed that the value of articles lifted was nearly rupees 14.90 lakhs no details were specifically given. From the counter- affidavit filed before the High Court it is crystal clear that relevant details disputing claim of the writ petitioner were given. Value of articles lifted by the writ petitioner is a disputed factual question. Where a complicated question of fact is involved and the matter requires thorough proof on factual aspects, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. Whether or not the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend upon the nature of dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolved without going into the factual controversy, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. As noted above, the writ petition was primarily founded on allegation of breach of contract. Question whether the action of the opposite party in the writ petition amounted to breach of contractual obligation ultimately depends on facts and would require material evidence to be scrutinized and in such a case writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. Above being the position the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. However, our interference in the matter shall not stand in the way of the writ petitioner seeking any other remedy as is available in law. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment directing payment to respondent, Disputed facts in writ petition, Contradictory conclusions by High Court, Non-application of mind by High Court, Entertaining writ petition on factual disputes, Impermissible directions by High Court, Maintainability of writ petition in breach of contract claim.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges a judgment by the Orissa High Court directing the appellant-Corporation to pay the respondent a sum within a specified period, with interest for non-payment. The respondent, a writ petitioner, alleged breach of contract by the Corporation regarding the purchase of materials. The High Court allowed the writ petition, noting disputed facts and the difficulty in lifting materials within the stipulated time. However, the High Court's conclusions were contradictory, as it directed payment based on the petitioner's assertions, despite acknowledging the factual disputes involved.

The Corporation contended that the writ petition should not have been entertained, as it was based on disputed facts and sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was untenable. The Corporation provided documentary evidence to support its claim that the respondent had lifted goods worth a higher value than claimed. The respondent argued that there were no factual disputes and accused the Corporation of introducing unwarranted disputes to confuse the issue.

The High Court's judgment was criticized for a lack of application of mind, as it acknowledged disputed facts but proceeded to give directions as if adjudicating a money claim in a suit. The Supreme Court emphasized that where disputes revolve around questions of fact, matters should not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court cited various precedents to support the view that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for breach of contractual obligations, especially when factual disputes are involved.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, deeming it unsustainable. The Court clarified that its interference did not preclude the respondent from seeking other available remedies in law. The appeal was allowed without costs.