M/S Shilpi Construction, Represented Thro Its Power Of Attorney Holder- Shir Upendra Kumar Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand, Through The Chief Secretary

Facts

M/s Shilpi Construction (Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court seeking a mandamus to compel the respondents, including the State of Jharkhand and the Executive Officer of Dumka Municipal Council (Respondent No. 4), to release outstanding payments totaling Rs. 1,70,29,021.54 and Rs. 57,00,500/-. These payments arose from contracts for maintenance and operational work under the Dumka Urban Water Supply Scheme, with the cause of action stated to have arisen in 2021, specifically on 30.04.2021. The Petitioner also sought interest on these admitted dues and a direction for the disposal of their repeated representations. The Petitioner's claim included 18% GST and 1% labour cess on the admitted dues, which they alleged were withheld arbitrarily without any formal order or opportunity for hearing.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by law, which is three years for contractual matters. The Court noted that the Petitioner themselves stated the cause of action arose in 2021, and the writ petition was filed significantly later. The Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition when it was barred by the law of limitation. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent the law of limitation. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of limitation. The Petitioner was, however, granted liberty to pursue their remedy in accordance with law, implying they could explore alternative legal avenues outside of the writ jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the law of limitation, given that the cause of action arose in 2021 and the petition was filed beyond three years? 2. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can entertain a contractual dispute that is barred by limitation? The Petitioner argued that the outstanding payments were admitted dues arising from contractual work and that the withholding of these payments, along with GST and labour cess, was arbitrary and in violation of natural justice. They sought a direction for immediate release of payments and interest. The Petitioner also sought a direction for the disposal of their representations. The Respondents, through the State's counsel, did not present a detailed argument on the merits of the contractual dispute but rather relied on the Petitioner's own statement regarding the cause of action and the applicable law of limitation. The Court considered the contractual nature of the dispute and the statutory period of limitation.