Ms Vidhata Raj Construction Private Limited Through Kishore Kumar Jha vs. Damodar Valley Corporation Through The Chairman D V C

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could not be entertained. Firstly, it noted that there was no contractual relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-DVC. Secondly, the Court observed that respondent no. 5, being a private contractor, could not be treated as the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Court reasoned that any claim arising from the work orders issued by respondent no. 5 in favour of the petitioner, or any agreements between them, constituted a civil dispute. Such disputes, the Court stated, must be raised before a competent court of civil jurisdiction and cannot be entertained under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue alternative remedies available under law to claim the due amount from respondent no. 5. The interlocutory applications were also dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Vidhata Raj Construction Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking directions for payment of Rs. 2,51,41,200/- plus GST and interest from Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) and its officials. The petitioner also sought to withhold dues and bank guarantee of respondent no. 5, M/s. H.R. Builders. The petitioner claimed to have received sub-contracts from respondent no. 5 via work orders dated December 12, 2016, for work executed for DVC. However, DVC contended that there was no agreement between the petitioner and DVC, and respondent no. 5 was not permitted to award sub-contracts. The agreements for the work were between DVC and respondent no. 5.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition for recovery of dues arising from a sub-contractual relationship between a private entity and another private entity, where there is no direct contractual relationship with the State or its instrumentalities (Article 12 of the Constitution of India)? 2. Whether the High Court can entertain a dispute concerning work orders issued by a private contractor (respondent no. 5) to another private contractor (petitioner) under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, when such disputes are civil in nature? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner asserted that they were awarded work by respondent no. 5 through valid work orders and were thus entitled to payment from DVC, implicitly suggesting a connection or liability of DVC. They sought directions for payment and to secure their dues by withholding funds from respondent no. 5. Revenue/State's (DVC's) arguments: DVC argued that there was no contractual relationship between the petitioner and DVC. DVC further contended that respondent no. 5 was not authorized to award sub-contracts, and therefore, the work orders issued by respondent no. 5 in favour of the petitioner could not be recognized by DVC. DVC maintained that disputes arising from such sub-contracts must be pursued in a civil court.