Monowar Hussain vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that while the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide, its exercise is discretionary and subject to self-imposed limitations. The case involved numerous disputed questions of fact, including whether the amounts claimed were payable, the extent of liability, the validity of contract termination, and whether extra works were indeed entrusted. These disputed facts required appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, and examination of witnesses, which are not appropriate for determination in a writ proceeding under Article 226. The Court noted that the Contract-Agreement itself contained provisions for dispute settlement through arbitration (Clause 64) and civil court. Therefore, disputes relating to the interpretation, implementation, or enforceability of contract terms are not ordinarily subject to writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue arbitration or approach the civil court.

Facts

The petitioner, Monowar Hussain, instituted a writ petition seeking payment of Rs. 7,61,858/- from the respondent N.F. Railway authorities for contract work. The amount comprised two bills: Rs. 3,51,858/- for contract work and Rs. 4,10,000/- for extra works. The petitioner was awarded a contract for painting signaling and telecom gears for Rs. 5,14,210/- with a completion period of 90 days from December 12, 2017. The petitioner claims to have completed the contract work on August 8, 2018, and extra works on January 1, 2019. The Railway authorities disputed the claims, stating the contract was terminated due to the petitioner's failure to complete it and that no extra works were entrusted. The petitioner had received notices for delays and eventual termination of the contract on May 27, 2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact arising from a contractual matter, specifically concerning the payment of outstanding amounts for contract work and extra works, and the validity of contract termination? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities admitted liability for Rs. 3,51,858/- in a Forwarding Report dated December 9, 2019, after deductions. He also claimed entitlement to Rs. 4,10,000/- for extra works. Respondents' contentions: The N.F. Railway authorities contended that the contract was terminated due to the petitioner's failure to complete the work within the stipulated and extended periods, and that no extra works were entrusted. They argued that the petitioner failed to provide cogent materials to support the claim for extra works.