Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41979 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Dhanvantari Construction Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Pandey,Rajendra Prasad Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pratik J. Nagar
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Sri Surendra Nath Chauhan states that he has filed vakalatnama on behalf of Union of Indian in the Registry of this Court.
Heard Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, Sri Surendra Nath Chauha, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the payment of dues claiming out of contract. However, it appears that the same has come to be disputed by the respondents.
The disputed question of fact regarding the work done under the contract and the money due to the petitioner cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of power under article 226 of the constitution.
Learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition as the disputed question of fact is involved with regard to the payment of dues arising out of the work done under a contract work. He has placed reliance upon the judgement and order of coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Writ-C No.-11544 of 2014 M/s R.S. Associate through proprietor Reeta Singh Vs. State of U.P decided on 24.2.2014, in which vide paragraph no.4 the Court has held as under:-
"On the other hand, we have heard this petition for final disposal and we are firmly of the view that it will not be appropriate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction in the matter. It is true that there is no absolute bar in entertaining a petition in a contractual matter. However, in cases such as the present, several issues on facts which have been noted in the earlier part of this judgement have to be determined by the competent authority. 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. The Court, therefore, declines to entertain this petition."
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has remedy to apply under common law. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed and consigned to record.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Shiraz