Mohd Aslam vs. Chief Engineer (Ganga) Irrigation And Water Resource Department

Held

The Court held that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for claiming contract dues. The Court reasoned that disputes arising from contract, especially those involving claims for payment, profit, GST, and interest, are essentially civil in nature and require a more detailed examination of evidence, which is best undertaken by a Civil Court. Therefore, the Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for payment. Instead, to meet the ends of justice, the Court permitted the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority in the U.P. Irrigation Department by making a representation. The Competent Authority, specifically the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, was directed to examine the matter and pass an appropriate decision in accordance with the law within ten weeks of receiving the representation. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file the representation within two weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, a Class 'A' Contractor registered with the U.P. Irrigation Department, filed a writ petition seeking payment for goods and services supplied for riverbank repair in June 2019. The petitioner claims to have supplied boulders and provided machinery such as Poclain Machine, J.C.B. Machine, Dozer, and Tractor. The total amount claimed is Rs. 85,43,492/-, along with 10% profit, 12% GST on the total due amount, and 12% per annum interest. The petitioner also sought directions for respondents 5 and 6 to produce tender-related records for financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The State of Uttar Pradesh raised a preliminary objection that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for claiming contract dues, suggesting recourse to the Civil Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition is the appropriate remedy for a contractor seeking payment of contract dues from a government department, or should the petitioner be relegated to the Civil Court? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, by filing a writ petition, implicitly argued that the matter could be adjudicated by the High Court, likely based on the principle of enforcing contractual obligations against a state entity, especially when seeking specific reliefs like payment and interest. The petitioner sought a mandamus to compel payment. Revenue's (State of Uttar Pradesh) Contention: The State argued that a writ petition is not the proper remedy for claiming contract dues. They contended that such disputes are civil in nature and should be resolved through the ordinary civil courts, which are equipped to handle complex factual matrix and evidence required for contractual claims.