Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
(Per : Hon'ble R. N. Tilhari, J.)
1. Heard Shri Ram Ji Trivedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State opposite parties.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., District Magistrate, Hardoi and the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hardoi respectively, to release the admitted and verified amount of Rs. 6,87,800/- to the petitioner with interest thereon from the date of entitlement of payment of admitted amount till the date of actual payment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is engaged in catering work. His quotations for providing catering services were accepted in respect of Awasiya C.L.T.S. Training Programme with effect from 06.10.2017 to 10.10.2017, 26.10.2017 to 30.10.2017, 11.12.2017 and 07.03.2018 under Swachh Bharat Mission Scheme(Rural). The petitioner did the catering work and submitted bills for payment from time to time aggregating to Rs. 6,87,800/-, but the payment under those bills has not been made. He submits that the liability for payment of the amount was admitted by the opposite parties as according to him the bills were verified by the Accountant and consequently the non-payment is not justified.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of State of Kerala and others Vs. T. V. Anil, AIR 2002 Ker 160(F.B.) to submit that in the matters of contract where the petitioner seeks enforcement of obligation on the part of the State to pay the bills amount admitted by the State, the writ petition is maintainable.
5. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record.
6. From the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also from perusal of the record of the petition what we find is that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that it is a case of admitted liability of the amount under the bills submitted before the opposite parties. By the Letter No. 3402/Pan.-7/Lekhakar/Sa.Ka./2018-19 dated 27.09.2018 of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hardoi it was informed to the Prabhari Adhikri (Complaint), Collectorate, Hardoi (Annexure-9) that the file relating to payment of catering charges was sent to the Senior Treasury Officer, Hardoi to make inquiry under the direction of the District Magistrate, Hardoi. By letter No. 4089/Pan.-7/PGPortal/2019-20 dated 30.11.2019, Annexure-8 of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, the petitioner was directed to submit evidence and the work order, etc., to enable to take further action. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioner's claim has been adjudicated upon or admitted by the opposite parties. Merely because of the initials of the accountant on some bills as alleged by the petitioner, we cannot consider it to be a case for admitted liability in view of the above letters dated 27.09.2018 and 30.11.2019 as also nothing has been shown to the effect that the accountant is the competent authority to admit the claim.
7. The claim as raised requires adjudication by making enquiry into facts and on evidence, for which the writ petition is not the proper remedy. We are not observing that the petitioner is or is not entitled for payment but on the basis of the material placed before us, it could not be shown to be a case of admitted liability.
8. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Smt. Asha Goyal, (2001) 2 SCC 160, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, in a case where for determination of the dispute raised, it is necessary to inquire into facts for determination of which it may become necessary to record oral evidence, a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not the appropriate forum. The Hon'ble Apex Court has disapproved of a High Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters of enforcement of contractual rights and obligation particularly where the claim by one party is contested by the other and adjudication of the dispute requires enquiry into facts.
9. In T. V. Anil (supra) cited by the petitioner's counsel, it has been held that it cannot be said in absolute terms that a writ petition is not maintainable in contractual matters including where the contractors seek enforcement of the obligation on the part of the State to pay the bill amounts admitted by the State. Paragraph-18 of the judgment reads as under:
18. Guided by the salutary principles in the subject-matter and as particularly laid down by the Supreme Court, and applying the same on the issue referred to us, it has to be held that it cannot be said in absolute terms that a writ petition is not maintainable in contractual matters including where the Contractors seek enforcement of the obligation on the part of the State to pay the bill amounts admitted by the State. Though couched in different terms, all the decisions referred by us above lead to the said conclusion. All the activities of the State are in public interest and for public good. There is public law element in contracts where State is a party, and it naturally follows that there is public duty. And above all, any State action is liable to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Essentially, the only limitation of the High Court is the self-imposed restriction. A few relevant factors in exercising the self-imposed limitation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of payment of Contractors' bills are :
(1) When there is no disputed question of fact requiring adjudication on detailed evidence.
(2) When no alternate form is provided in the resolution of any disputes pertaining to a contract.
(3) When claim by one party is not contested by the other and the contest does not require adjudication requiring detailed enquiry into facts.
10. There is no dispute on the above proposition of law, but in the present case, what we find is that there is nothing on record to show the admitted liability of the State opposite parties for payment of the bills. In T. V. Anil(supra) as is evident from para-19 thereof, there was no dispute on the factual position and the State therein had admitted its liability to pay the bill amount.
11. We are of the considered view that the writ petition is not the proper remedy, which is hereby dismissed on this ground alone but, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate, Hardoi or/ and the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hardoi, which had issued letter dated 30.11.2019 to the petitioner calling upon him to submit documentary proof of catering, etc., for redressal of his grievances, upon which the competent authority shall take final decision in the matter, if the matter is still pending, or the petitioner may take recourse to such other remedy as may be open to him under law if so advised.
Order Date :- 27.07.2021 Mustaqeem