Dismissed

Dharmendra Singh Chauhan v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2019WRIC/26329/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition alleging non-payment of dues under a contract of work performed between 2012-13. Relying on settled law, the bench held that contractual obligations arise from private law relationships and are enforceable only through civil suits, not extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

petitioner granted liberty to apply for common law remedy for enforcement of contract, if any.

Dharmendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of U P… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26329 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hans Nath Pandey,Ghanshyam Das Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dr. G.S.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for Electricity Department-respondent nos. 3 and 4, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has raised grievance for non payment of his dues under the Contract of Work which were carried out by him after allotment of the work order.

¶8

The matter relates to the year 2012-13. A Division Bench of this Court has held in the case of M/s Ipjacket Technology India Private Limited vs. M.D. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. (Writ-C No. 34346 of 2018, that such grievance can be raised only by way of civil suit.

¶9

Vide paras-21, 22 and 23 of the judgement (supra), the Division Bench hold thus:

¶10

" 21. In the case of State of Bihar Vs. Jain Plastics & Chemicals Ltd.7 a grievance was sought to be raised against deduction of an amount from the final bill to be paid to the contractor due to breach of contract by him. The petition was allowed by the High Court. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court wherein it was held that even if it was possible to decide the question raised in the petition on the basis of affidavits and counter affidavits, it would not be proper to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases of alleged breach of contract. The observations made by the Supreme Court are as follows:-

¶11

"2. Limited question involved in this appeal is -- whether the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for granting relief in case of alleged breach of contract.

¶12

3. Settled law -- writ is not the remedy for enforcing contractual obligations. It is to be reiterated that writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper proceedings for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it was open to the respondent to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach of contract... x x x x x

¶13

7. ...It is true that many matters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract. Whether the alleged non-supply of road permits by the appellants would justify breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs."

¶14

22. The general principles which may be culled out from the aforementioned judgments is that in a case where the contract entered into between the State and the person aggrieved is of a non-statutory character and the relationship is governed purely in terms of a contract between the parties, in such situations the contractual obligations are matters of private law and a writ would not lie to enforce a civil liability arising purely out of a contract. The proper remedy in such cases would be to file a civil suit for claiming damages, injunctions or specific performance or such appropriate reliefs in a civil court. Pure contractual obligation in the absence of any statutory complexion would not be enforceable through a writ.

¶15

23. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution being an extraordinary remedy, it is not intended to be used for the purpose of declaring private rights of the parties. In the case of enforcement of contractual rights and liabilities the normal remedy of filing a civil suit being available to the aggrieved party, this Court may not exercise its prerogative writ jurisdiction to enforce such contractual obligations."

¶16

In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.

¶17

The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply for common law remedy for enforcement of the contract, if any.

¶18

(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 8.8.2019 Shiraz

Dharmendra Singh Chauhan v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Singh Chauhan v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Aptech Ltd. Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Another

Arti Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sanjay Jeswar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brijesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Fast Construction Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Suman Devi Vs Union of India and 2 Others