Dismissed¶28

Sunil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC19 Mar 2024WPC/2270/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court (W.P.(C) No. 2270 of 2012, decided 19.03.2024, Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.): Article 226 writ by Assistant Engineer for recovery of Rs.58,78,920/- withheld as excess expenditure on construction of Community Health Centre, Barkatha, dismissed; writ jurisdiction unavailable for money claims arising out of breach of contract and for disputed questions of fact on accounts; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dolly Das, (1999) 4 SCC 450 relied on. Keywords: money claim, breach of contract, disputed question of fact, advance adjustment, unadjusted amount, writ dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for money claims arising out of breach of contract, even against the State; consequently the petitioner's money claim cannot be pursued through this writ petition. ¶26

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 2270 of 2012

Sunil Kumar

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

Chief Engineer, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

Superintending Engineer, Rural Development Department, Hazaribagh

¶10

Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department, Hazaribagh

¶11

… …. Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Kr. Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II ----- Oral Order

¶15

05 / Dated : 19.03.2024

¶16

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction to the respondents authority to pay the admitted due amount to the tune of Rs.58,78,920/-.

¶17

The petitioner is Assistant Engineer in Rural Development Special Division, Hazaribagh and was entrusted with several departmental works including construction of Community Health Centre, Barkatha in the district of Hazaribagh while he was posted there. The petitioner received a sum of Rs.1,31,99,610/- as an advance against the total estimated cost of Rs.441 Lakh for which administrative sanction was granted of Rs.358.592 Lakhs for construction of said work. The petitioner claims to have spent Rs.1,90,78,581/for carrying out said departmental work has also incurred excess expenditure of Rs.58,78,920/-. Excess expenditure was taken from other project for completion of the said work. The said excess amount is being withheld by the department and hence this writ petition has been filed for recovery of the same.

¶18

A counter affidavit dated 12.10.12 has been filed on behalf of the Respondent State, in which it has been pleaded that there was advance of Rs.1,31,99,610/for completion of departmental work of Community Health Centre, Barkatha. Petitioner submitted Rs.1,96,22,291 i.e. excess adjustment of Rs.64,22,630/which he invested from the fund advanced to him for other works. Said adjustment was improper as it affected other works which are still pending.

¶19

Petitioner was further sanctioned Rs.36,36,354 against which no work has been carried out.

¶20

For other different twelve works account has not been submitted for Rs

¶21

¶22

1,27,94,104 which is still pending with him. Total unadjusted amount of Rs.93,24,739/- is pending with the petitioner and for its recovery several reminders have been given to him.

¶23

The matter for consideration before this Court is whether in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the disputed question of facts regarding account can be considered.

¶24

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on Annexure-3,to reply to the counter affidavit, that as per total advance payment for construction of Community Heath Centre, Barkatha was Rs.1,71,99,661/- out of which Rs. 40 Lakh has been refunded by the petitioner on 20.06.2008.

¶25

The main contention of the petitioner is that as per Annexure-3 which is detail of expenditure issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Hazaribagh with respect to construction of Community Health Centre, Barkatha Rs.1,75,09,775/- was incurred as expenditure and the petitioner as per the case of the Respondents authority had been advanced of Rs.1,31,99,661 and the balance amount has not been paid to him. Therefore Rs.40,00,000/- earlier returned is an admitted due with respect to the construction expenses incurred by the Petitioner in CHC Barkathha.

¶26

From the submissions advanced, admittedly the Petitioner was entrusted with different works being carried out by the Department. Petitioner and the Department make claim and counter claim with regard to the amount due against each other. This Court is of the view that extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for money claims arising out of breach of contract. This Court cannot delve into disputed question of facts. It has been held in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dolly Das , (1999) 4 SCC 450 :

¶27

6. In the absence of 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 the 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.

¶28

Writ Petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶29

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶30

AKT/Satendra

¶31

Uploaded

Sunil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Murmu And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Most.Ilabala Devi And Ord Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II Vs M/S Chotanagpur Graphite Industries

Shyamlal Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Deo Narayan Yadav Vs Smt.Anju Devi

Subhash Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand