Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20293 of 2019
Petitioner :- M/S Starway
Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard Sri Brijendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos. 2 to 7.
The petitioner is claiming payment of amount due to it on account of work carried out in performance of a contract. It is submitted that the amount due to be paid is admitted to the respondents but the same has not been paid.
The petitioner has sought a mandamus to release the payment of his outstanding bills.
The issue involved herein in respect of payment of the outstanding bills in respect of a contract has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11544 of 2014 decided on 24.02.2014 wherein it has been held as under :
"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 judgment 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 and can appropriately be adjudicated upon in a civil suit on the basis of the evidence, particularly having regard to the nature of the issue involved. The Court, therefore, declines to entertain this petition."
The same view has been taken by another Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15127 of 2014, M/s M. K. Enterprises Vs. State of U. P. and three others, decided on 11.03.2014. In the present case also, the issue involved is in respect of payment of outstanding dues in respect of contractual agreement between the parties. The claim of the petitioner arises out of a contract and such dispute is not liable to be resolved by this Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction, for the same requires consideration of evidence which cannot be effectively gone into writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
We, for the reasons also, decline to entertain this petition and the same accordingly stands dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to approach such other alternative forum available to it in law for redressal of its grievance, as may be advised.
(Vivek Varma, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 14.6.2019
Lbm/-