A writ petition seeking direction to disburse a bill amount was dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that it could not decide disputed questions of fact regarding work execution and contract privity, advising the petitioner to pursue civil remedies.
No order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.
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
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.04.2017 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P(MD)No.6819 of 2017
Hindustan Marketing Enterprises, represented by its Managing Partner, A.Swaminathan, S/o.Arunachalam, P.No.56, Sivan Kovil 3rd Cross, Kumaran Nagar, Trichy – 620 017. ..Petitioner Vs
The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Madurai – 625 016. ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to disburse the bill amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,920/- vide invoice No.950 dated 22.08.2012 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 16.08.2016.
For Petitioner :Mr.A.Amal Antony
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the Respondent to disburse the bill amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,920/- vide invoice No.950 dated 22.08.2012 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 16.08.2016.
2.According to the petitioner, some amount is due from the respondent for the work carried out by them as contractor and the same has not been paid.
3.There is absolutely no explanation from the petitioner as to why they have filed this Writ Petition after so long time. More over, the extent of work executed by the petitioner has been disputed by the respondent in their communication dated 20.07.2016. There is dispute regarding the nature of work carried out by the petitioner and according to the respondent there was also no privity of contract between the petitioner and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent and it was also contended that there was no due from the respondent.
2
4.In such view of the matter, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide the disputed questions of fact. If the petitioner is aggrieved, they can resort to any other remedy in a manner known to law. Therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar()
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Madurai – 625 016.
+1cc to Ms. A. AMALA ANTHONY , Advocate, SR.No.52341
W.P(MD)No.6819 of 2017 17.04.2017
SDS/RSK/10.05.2017/2P/3C
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of disputed questions of fact regarding the extent of work executed and privity of contract.
Whether the High Court can decide disputed questions of fact under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the delay in filing the petition renders it abandoned or un-maintainable.
Hindustan Marketing Enterprises
The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Madurai
V. Parthiban
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
