Bipin Chandra Bisht vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, a contractor, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay Rs. 29,93,705/- for three executed works, along with interest at 12% for delayed payments. The petitioner also sought a writ of certiorari to quash a letter dated 09.08.2023, which proposed payment of 12% GST on pending payments instead of the claimed 18%. The petitioner further sought a mandamus to direct the respondent to pay 18% GST on the said amount. The State counsel submitted that the pending dues had been paid. The petitioner's counsel countered that payments were released after three years, without any interest. The State counsel argued that the claim for interest could not be decided in a writ petition and suggested approaching a competent civil court.

Held

The Court found substance in the submission made by the learned State Counsel. It held that a dispute regarding interest on delayed payment cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach a competent court of law regarding their claim for interest on the alleged delayed payment of dues. The issue concerning the GST rate was not explicitly decided by the Court, as the petition was dismissed on the ground that the interest claim was not maintainable in a writ proceeding.

Key Issues

1. Whether the claim for interest on delayed payment of dues can be adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as per the petitioner's prayer for a writ of mandamus directing payment of Rs. 29,93,705/- along with 12% interest. 2. Whether the respondent's letter dated 09.08.2023, proposing payment of 12% GST on pending payments instead of 18%, is liable to be quashed, and whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for payment of 18% GST, as per the petitioner's prayer for a writ of certiorari and mandamus. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought payment of principal dues, interest on delayed payment, and the correct GST rate. The petitioner contended that the payment was delayed for three years and interest was due. The petitioner also argued for the payment of 18% GST. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel submitted that the pending dues had been paid. The State counsel further argued that the petitioner's claim for interest could not be decided in a writ petition and that the petitioner should approach a competent civil court for such a claim.