The court dismissed the writ petition seeking payment for work performed under a contract, holding it was maintainable only as a civil suit, not a writ, as no statutory rights were involved.
Writ petition dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy as enforcement of contract is a matter of common law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26532 of 2019
Petitioner :- M/S Narendra Traders Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Pandey,Achyut Jee Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
(2)
Kalathil and others 2000 (6) SCC 293, Apex Court again reiterated that interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be subject-matter of a writ petition. Whether a contract envisages actual payment or not is a question of construction of contract. If a term of contract is violated, ordinarily remedy is not the writ petition under Article 226. A contract would not become statutory simply because it is for construction of a public utility and it has been awarded by a statutory body. A statute may expressly or impliedly confer power on a statutory body to enter into contracts in order to enable it to discharge its functions. Disputes arising out of the terms of such contracts or alleged breaches have to be settled by the ordinary principles of law of contract. The fact that one of the parties to the agreement is a statutory or public body will not by itself affect the principles to be applied. The disputes about the meaning of a covenant in a contract or its enforceability have to be determined according to the usual principles of the Contract Act. Every act of a statutory body need not necessarily involve an exercise of statutory power. Statutory bodies have power to contract or deal with property like private parties. Such activities may not raise any issue of public law. When it is not shown that contract is statutory and parties are within the realm of their authority, contract between the parties is in the realm of private law. The disputes relating to interpretation of terms and conditions of such contract cannot be agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court further said:
"That is a matter for adjudication by a civil court or in arbitration if provided for in the contract. Whether any amount is due and if so, how much and refusal of the appellant to pay it is justified or not, are not the matters which could have been agitated and decided in a writ petition."
(3)
"In the present case, there is nothing on the record which may persuade us to hold that the contract is a statutory contract. The remedy of the contractor, if he is aggrieved by nonpayment, would be to either file an ordinary civil suit or if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, to invoke the terms of the agreement."
"2. We are of the view that, in a matter of this nature which pertains to alleged non-payment of dues under a contract for supply of goods, it would neither be prudent nor judicious for this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to grant relief, which is in substance, is a prayer for a money decree. These matters, it must be emphasized, are not those relating to statutory contracts but are purely non-statutory contracts. Whether work has been satisfactorily performed, whether the rates which had been quoted are in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether the goods were of a quality as mandated, and above all, whether the claim is within limitation or otherwise, are issues which cannot appropriately be adjudicated upon under Article 226 of the Constitution. "
(4)
13.05.2014; and, M/s Jai Goswami Electric Works Alld. Vs. Union of India through D.R.M. and others), decided on 19.05.2016.
Order Date :- 9.9.2019 Manish Tripathi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to enforce payment under a contractual dispute in the absence of constitutional or statutory rights.
Whether remedy for breach of contract lies in common law and not through writ jurisdiction despite the respondent being the State.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and another Vs. Dolly DasRelied on¶9
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and another Vs. Dolly Das 1999 (4) SCC 450 · Who else cites this
Kerala State Electricity Board and another Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and othersRelied on¶10
Kerala State Electricity Board and another Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and others 2000 (6) SCC 293 · Who else cites this
M/S Prabhu Construction Company through its Proprietor Vs. State of U.P. and anotherApplied¶14
M/S Prabhu Construction Company through its Proprietor Vs. State of U.P. and another (Writ C No. 25075 of 2014)
M/s R.S. Associate Vs. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶17
M/s R.S. Associate Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 11544 of 2014)
Alaska Tech Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶18
Alaska Tech Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (6) ADJ 591
M/S Goyal Stationary Mart through its Proprietor State of U.P.Relied on¶20
M/S Goyal Stationary Mart through its Proprietor State of U.P.
M/S Narendra Traders
State Of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
