The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 for payment due under a work contract. Holding that the contract was non-statutory, the Court ruled that constitutional remedies are unavailable for private law disputes and ordinary civil suits or arbitration are the appropriate forums.
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. - 3473 of 2019
Petitioner :- Dheeraj Mishra Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar,Pankaj Kumar Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gyanendra Kumar Dwivedi
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
2
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:
3
4
Advertising Agency Vs. U.P. Technical University and others 2014 (11) ADJ 227; M/s A.K. Constructions Vs. State of U.P. and others (Misc. Bench No. 1909 of 2014) decided on 07.03.2014; Major Travels through Proprietor Vs. State of U.P. and others (Misc. Bench No. 3472 of 2014) decided on 25.04.2014; and Uttaranchal Paper Converters and Publishers through Proprietor Vs. State of U.P. and others (Misc. Bench No. 3898 of 2015) decided on 13.05.2014. 10. In view thereof, we are clearly of the view that mandamus sought by petitioner cannot be granted in extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Siddhant Sahu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available to enforce a claim for payment arising out of a non-statutory work contract.
Whether a dispute regarding interpretation and enforcement of contractual terms lies within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and another Vs. Dolly DasExplained¶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 othersExplained¶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 anotherFollowed¶15
M/S Prabhu Construction Company through its Proprietor Vs. State of U.P. and another
M/s R.S. Associate Vs. State of U.P. and othersFollowed¶17
M/s R.S. Associate Vs. State of U.P. and others
Alaska Tech Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶18
Alaska Tech Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (6) ADJ 591
M/S Goyal Stationary Mart through its Proprietor State of U.P.Referred¶19
M/S Goyal Stationary Mart through its Proprietor State of U.P.
Budh Gramin Sansthan Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶19
Budh Gramin Sansthan Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (7) ADJ 29
Kaka Advertising Agency Vs. U.P. Technical University and othersReferred¶19
Kaka Advertising Agency Vs. U.P. Technical University and others 2014 (11) ADJ 227
M/s A.K. Constructions Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶19
M/s A.K. Constructions Vs. State of U.P. and others
Major Travels through Proprietor Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶19
Major Travels through Proprietor Vs. State of U.P. and others
Uttaranchal Paper Converters and Publishers through Proprietor Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶19
Uttaranchal Paper Converters and Publishers through Proprietor Vs. State of U.P. and others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dheeraj Mishra
Union Of India
3 Others
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
