M/S. Shiv Shakti Engineering Works vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shiv Shakti Engineering Works, filed a writ petition seeking directions for payment of GST over and above the quoted bid rates and to expedite settlement of pending bills. The petitioner also sought adherence to a correspondence dated July 19, 2024. The respondents are various authorities of the Public Works Department of the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner's claim for GST reimbursement is based on a contract. The respondents contend that the insertion of a clause related to GST in the contract was a clerical error, and allowing reimbursement would cause a significant loss to the public exchequer. The Court noted that the relief sought by the petitioner was contingent upon the resolution of disputed questions of fact.

Held

The Court held that it should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when disputed questions of fact are involved. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court reiterated that a writ petition is not a proper remedy for resolving such disputes, which require evidence and cannot be decided solely on affidavits. The Court found that the petitioner's claim for GST reimbursement was contingent upon the resolution of disputed facts, specifically regarding the alleged clerical error in the contract and the extent of the loss to the public exchequer. The Court noted that the insertion of Clause 41.1 of the contract was admitted to be a clerical error, and the petitioner could not take undue advantage of it. The authority that floated the tender had the right to correct such errors. Therefore, the Court concluded that it would not be appropriate to entertain the writ petition due to the presence of disputed questions of fact. The petition was dismissed, with liberty reserved for the petitioner to pursue alternate remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when it involves disputed questions of fact, particularly concerning contractual obligations and the interpretation of contract clauses, such as the alleged clerical error in the contract regarding GST reimbursement? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution and principles of contract interpretation). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought directions for payment of GST over and above quoted rates and adherence to correspondence dated July 19, 2024, implying a contractual entitlement. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the clause for GST reimbursement was a clerical error and its correction was permissible, as allowing it would lead to a huge loss to the public exchequer. They asserted that the relief sought by the petitioner was contingent on resolving disputed questions of fact.