Petitioner sought enforcement of a service agreement with a Gram Pradhan. The Court dismissed the writ petition as unauthorized, holding that contractual disputes are the domain of civil courts and an alternative remedy exists.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20579
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2267 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ram Dulari
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Punchyat Raj Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
been sought against the Pradhan and consequently writ petition in this regard would be maintainable.
"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. It is settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue writ, but ordinarily that would be a good ground in refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226."
"It is not disputed that the contract agreement entered into by and between the parties contain an arbitration agreement. Furthermore, the respondent herein filed the aforementioned writ petition for enforcing a contract qua contract. Although an objection has been taken as regards the maintainability of the writ petition by the appellant herein, the same unfortunately has not been considered by the High Court. It is well settled that writ of or in the nature of mandamus would not ordinarily issue for enforcing the terms and conditions of a contract qua contract. A writ of mandamus would issue when a question involving public Law character arises for consideration. It is also well settled that the High Court would not entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact. Keeping in view the aforementioned well settled principles of law, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained."
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 7.3.2024 RKM.
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for enforcement of a contractual agreement between a petitioner and a Gram Pradhan.
Is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner for enforcing contractual rights?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Bihar vs. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.Distinguished¶8
State of Bihar vs. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 216 · Who else cites this
State of J & K vs. Ghulam Mohd. Dar.Distinguished¶9
State of J & K vs. Ghulam Mohd. Dar, (2004)12 SCC 327 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Dulari
The State Of U.P.
Prin. Secy. Punchyat Raj Deptt. Lko.
3 Others
Village Pradhan
Alok Mathur
Rakesh Kumar Maurya
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
