9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reto. In the absence of any statutory right, Article 226 cannot be availed to claim any money in respect of breach of contract or tort or otherwise. Mandamus sought by petitioner is nothing but grant of a money decree in extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 which ought not to have been granted. Petition dismissed with costs. - Misc. Bench No. - 22499 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2017 - Mr. Sudhir Agarwal And Mr. Ravindra Nath Mishra, JJ. For The Petitioner : Pradeep Raje For The Respondent : Gaurav Mehrotra, Dipak Seth,Kumar Ayush ORDER 1. Heard Sri Predeep Raje, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dipak Seth, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This is throughly misconceived and ill advise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Court holding that there is no legal liability on the Central Government to pay amount of salestax. However, having said so, Court also observed that in a democratic society governed by rule of law, a Government is expected to be inspired by ethical and moral values and should do what is fair and just to the citizen, regardless of legal technicalities. Court expected that Central Government will not seek to defeat legitimate claim of assessee for reimbursement of sales tax on the amount of the freight by adopting a legalistic attitude. Thereafter a Review Application was filed by Company showing that there was a Clause in Rate Contract of Director General of Supplies and Disposals providing that sales tax, if legally leviable, will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e enforced against State or to avoid contractual liability arising thereto. In the absence of any statutory right, Article 226 cannot be availed to claim any money in respect of breach of contract or tort or otherwise. 7. In Kerala State Electricity Board and another Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and others 2000 (6) SCC 293 , Court said that interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be subjectmatter of a writ petition. Whether a contract envisages actual payment or not is a question of construction of contract. If a term of contract is violated, ordinarily remedy is not the writ petition under Article 226. A contract would not become statutory simply because it is for construction of a public utility and it has been aw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities, a Division Bench of this Court in M/S Prabhu Construction Company through its Proprietor Vs. State of U.P. and another (Writ C No. 25075 of 2014) decided on 05.05.2014 said as under: In the present case, there is nothing on the record which may persuade us to hold that the contract is a statutory contract. The remedy of the contractor, if he is aggrieved by nonpayment, would be to either file an ordinary civil suit or if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, to invoke the terms of the agreement. 9. The Court also relied on its earlier decision in M/s R.S. Associate Vs. State of U.P. and others (WritC No. 11544 of 2014) decided on 24.02.2014. 10. Again in Alaska Tech Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and others (Misc. Bench No. 3898 of 2015) decided on 13.05.2014. 12. In view thereof, we are clearly of the view that mandamus sought by petitioner is nothing but grant of a money decree in extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 which ought not to have been granted. 13. It may also be noted at this stage that on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3 a counter affidavit has been filed wherein claim of petitioner has been seriously disputed and it has been pleaded that petitioner violated agreement conditions and enhanced rate was not approved by competent authority. The alleged work performed by petitioner has also not been approved by competent authority and, therefore, payment has been held up. Thus it is a clear case wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
