Dismissed

Satish Chandra v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2019WRIC/4933/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to direct respondent to pay money under a contract. This Court held that the petition is essentially a money suit, as contractual disputes between private parties and statutory bodies are not maintainable under Article 226, and legal.}

What did the court decide?

No direction to pay the claimed amount; writ petition dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Satish Chandra Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4933 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hemant Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

¶6

The only relief sought in the present writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent 2 to pay Rs.1,13,000/- to petitioner and decide his representation dated 18.12.2018.

¶7

In the garb of writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, present one is a suit for recovery of money.

¶8

This Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court have repeatedly held that such kind of writ petitions are not maintainable. The question, whether for the purpose of recovery of money pursuant to contract, writ petition under Article 226 would be maintainable has been considered in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and another Vs. Dolly Das, 1999 (4) SCC 450 wherein Court said that in absence of any constitutional or statutory rights being involved, a writ proceeding would not lie to enforce contractual obligations even if it is sought to be enforced against State or to avoid contractual liability arising thereto. In the absence of any statutory right, Article 226 cannot be availed to claim any money in respect of breach of contract or tort or otherwise.

¶9

In Kerala State Electricity Board and another Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and others 2000 (6) SCC 293 , Court said 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

¶10

-2-

¶11

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:

¶12

"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."

¶13

Following the above authorities, a Division Bench of this Court in M/S Prabhu Construction Company through its Proprietor Vs.

¶14

State of U.P. and another (Writ C No. 25075 of 2014) decided on 05.05.2014 said as under:

¶15

"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."

¶16

The Court also relied on its earlier decision in M/s R.S. Associate Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 11544 of 2014) decided on 24.02.2014.

¶17

-3-

¶18

Again in Alaska Tech Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (6) ADJ 591 , a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:

¶19

"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."

¶20

The same view has been reiterated in M/S Goyal Stationary Mart through its Proprietor State of U.P. (Misc. Bench No. 10971 of 2015) decided on 27.11.2015, Budh Gramin Sansthan Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (7) ADJ 29, 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 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.

¶21

In view thereof, we are clearly of the view that mandamus sought by petitioner is nothing but a suit for recovery of money. The writ petition is not entertainable.

¶22

Dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.2.2019 Manish Himwan

Satish Chandra v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Chandra v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru Secretary Medical Education U.P. Govt. Vs Rajesh Kumar Srivastava

Neta Upadhyaya @ Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Prem Nath Jaiswal Vs the Official Liquidator U.P. and Others

Ravindra Nath Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

K. K. Paddy Product and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Sharad Enterprises Vs State of U P and 3 Others