2014 (2) TMI 1324 - HC - Indian Laws

Non payment of the bills - contract with the Irrigation Department inter alia for the supply of bolders, ropes for labourers and sand bags - Held that - It is true that there is no absolute bar in entertaining a petition in a contractual matter - The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is not warranted for what the petitioner seeks in essence is a decree in a civil suit which cannot be granted in this proceeding, particularly having regard to the nature of the issues involved - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Non-payment of bills under a contract with the Irrigation Department.

Analysis:
The petitioner had a contract with the Irrigation Department for the supply of materials but faced non-payment of bills. The petitioner sought a mandamus for payment with interest. The court noted that these were contractual matters and not suitable for a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court highlighted that issues like satisfactory completion of work, adherence to agreed rates, and proper execution needed assessment by the competent authority before any decision. The court stated that the contractor's remedy in case of non-payment would be to file a civil suit or invoke arbitration if there was an agreement.

The petitioner referred to a Division Bench order in a different case where an amount was sanctioned but not released, leading to a specific interim direction. However, the court emphasized that each case's circumstances were unique, and the present case did not warrant similar intervention. Despite acknowledging the absence of a complete bar on entertaining contractual matters, the court emphasized that various factual issues needed determination by the competent authority, making the exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction inappropriate. The court concluded that the petitioner essentially sought a civil suit decree, which was not suitable for the current proceedings due to the complexity of the issues involved.

In the final disposition, the court declined to entertain the petition, emphasizing that the nature of the issues required determination by the competent authority rather than through a writ petition. The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.