Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19059 of 2019
Petitioner :- Jainath Prasad Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Yadav; Umang Srivasatava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned standing counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4; and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks a direction upon the respondents to pay to the petitioner Rs.24,93,803/- allegedly payable to him under various work orders/ contracts in lieu of the work done by him between the year 2007 and the year 2011. The description of the contracts / work orders in lieu of which payment is sought has been provided in a tabular form vide annexure 2 to the petition.
The learned standing counsel has raised preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the petition on the ground that for recovery of money payable under works contract recourse to a civil suit or remedy provided under the contract, such as arbitration etc, would be appropriate; and, otherwise also, the claim has become barred by time because for recovery of money claims period of limitation is three years whereas the money claimed is in respect of the work done up to the year 2011 which is way beyond three years from the date of filing the petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the liability is admitted by the State but the same has been denied for want of funds and therefore the action of the state-
respondents had been arbitrary in denying payment to the petitioner. Hence, a writ petition would be maintainable. He has also invited attention of the court to certain reports submitted in connection with complaints made by the petitioner at the concerned portal, which suggest that payment could not be made for lack of funds allotted.
We have considered the rival submissions and have carefully perused the record.
A perusal of the record would reveal that the claim in this petition is a composite claim made in respect of 21 work orders as would be clear from the chart appended as annexure 2. Out of the 21 work orders, 2 are of the year 2007; 17 are of the year 2009; 1 is of the year 2010; and the remaining one is of the year 2011. Neither the contract nor the work order of any of the claims has been brought on record to demonstrate the terms and conditions of the contract/ work order and whether there exists an alternate dispute redressal forum. The reports appended as annexure 4 to the petition, which have allegedly been submitted on complaints made at the portal do not specifically admit the amount due and payable under any particular work contract/ order.
No doubt, the writ court may entertain a petition seeking enforcement of contractual obligations as also money claims against State or its instrumentality, particularly, where the State action is found arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But such claims are not to be entertained ordinarily, in writ jurisdiction, particularly, when in settling such claim an issue of limitation may arise for decision. In Dhanyalakshmi Rice Mills v. Commr. of Civil Supplies, (1976) 4 SCC 723, before a four-judges bench of the apex court an issue had arisen whether the high court was justified in dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners for refund of money paid. The apex court affirmed the decision of the high court and observed, in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the report, as follows:
“26. All the matters were covered by the common judgment. In some cases the claims were beyond three years from date of the payments. In some cases they were within a lesser time but the ground of delay on which the High Court exercised discretion is not confined purely to period of limitation but is bound up with matters relating to conduct of parties in regard to payments pursuant to agreements between the parties.
27. The remedy under Article 226 is not appropriate in the present cases for these reasons as well. First, several petitioners have joined. Each petitioner has individual and independent cause of action. A suit by such a combination of plaintiffs would be open to misjoinder. Second, there are triable issues like limitation, estoppel and questions of fact in ascertaining the expenses incurred by the Government for administrative surcharges of the scheme and allocating the expenses with regard to quality as well as quantity of rice covered by the permits.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
In a more recent decision, a two-judges bench of the apex court, in the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728, after taking a conspectus of existing authorities, in respect of maintainability of writ petitions dealing with enforcement of contractual obligations and money claims against state and its instrumentality, summarized the legal principles, in paragraph 69 of the report, as follows:
“69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, “normally”, the Court would not exercise such a discretion:
69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it.
69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration.
69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination.
69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Having noticed the legal principles culled out above, in the instant case we find that all the claims are in respect of work contracts of the year 2011 or before, that is of a period exceeding much beyond three years from the date of filing of this petition. As to when the amount became due and payable under those work contracts is not specifically disclosed. Further, as to what amount has been admitted to be due and payable and under which work order is not specifically disclosed either in the writ petition or in the appended reports on which reliance is placed.
Under the circumstances, in our considered view, this is not a money claim which falls in that exceptional category of cases where writ jurisdiction ought to be exercised for settling such a money claim.
The petition is therefore dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to remedy of a civil suit or such other remedy as may be advised.
It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion as regards the merit of the claim as also whether the suit or any other remedy would be within the period of limitation or not.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Rks.