Manocha Builders Nuh Through Its Proprietor Rakesh Manocha vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Manocha Builders, through its proprietor Rakesh Manocha, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the release of balance/final payment with interest for construction works executed. The respondents, State of Haryana and others, stated that the petitioner's GST and PAN details varied from previously submitted information. Verification revealed inconsistencies, and an FIR was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code due to alleged fraudulent acts. A dispute also existed with a sub-contractor, M/s Dharam Constructions, which had executed the work and to whom 40% of the contract value was permitted to be released. The respondents argued that disputed questions of fact arose, making a writ petition inappropriate.

Held

The Court held that it would not be appropriate for a writ court to exercise its jurisdiction given the conflicting civil rights claimed by the petitioner and respondent No.5 (M/s Dharam Constructions), the decisions taken by the parties, and the disputed questions of fact that arose for determination. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel did not press the instant petition. Consequently, liberty was granted to the parties to approach the Civil Court or pursue other available alternative remedies for the settlement of their disputes. The Court also directed that the period during which the writ petition remained pending would be considered while computing limitation for any such proceedings. The petition was disposed of as not pressed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should adjudicate on disputed questions of fact concerning conflicting civil rights and the legality of claims arising from a construction contract and its sub-contracting arrangements? (Section 226 of the Constitution of India, principles of writ jurisdiction) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought directions for payment and did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the writ petition on grounds of disputed facts, as they ultimately did not press the petition. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that due to conflicting claims between the petitioner and the sub-contractor (M/s Dharam Constructions), and the alleged fraudulent nature of the petitioner's claim, disputed questions of fact were involved. They contended that these complex factual disputes were not suitable for resolution by a writ court and that alternative remedies should be pursued.