Dilip Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Dilip Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking a mandamus to compel the respondents (State of Bihar through various departments and officials) to pay admitted dues for work done amounting to Rs. 8,30,221/-, extra work of Rs. 1,98,236.00, and a GST claim of Rs. 2,18,753.00 under Agreement No. 02 F2 of 2018-19. The petitioner also sought payment of EMD/security deposit and other dues, along with interest at 10%, and a completion certificate for work done under Agreement No. 02 F2 of 2021-22. The petitioner further requested the respondents to book and pass the Measurement Book (MB) for extra work and refund the EMD/security deposit. The work was completed within the extended period on August 25, 2022. The petitioner's counsel was absent during the hearing.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reasoning was based on the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which provides a specific remedy for commercial disputes. The Court found that the claims made by the petitioner, relating to contractual dues and payments, fall within the ambit of commercial disputes. Furthermore, the Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Puna Hinda (2021) 10 SCC 690, which likely reinforced the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised for resolving purely contractual disputes where alternative statutory remedies are available. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus is maintainable for directing the respondents to pay admitted dues, extra work claims, GST claims, EMD/security deposit refund, and interest, considering the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the remedy available thereunder. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the payment of various contractual dues, including admitted dues, extra work, GST, EMD, and interest, along with a completion certificate. The petitioner argued that these amounts were due and payable by the respondents. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State/respondents. However, the Court relied on the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and a Supreme Court judgment to dismiss the petition.