Ram Fakeer Singh Sewa Samiti vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The High Court declined to examine the issue of the factual dispute concerning the amount claimed by the petitioner and the EPF dues in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court found that there was a factual dispute relating to the amount being claimed by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail such other remedies as may be advised. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving complex factual disputes concerning contractual payments and statutory dues like EPF, especially when such disputes require detailed examination of evidence and accounts.

Facts

The petitioner, Ram Fakeer Singh Sewa Samiti, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.4.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi. This order was passed in compliance with a previous direction from the High Court. The petitioner sought payment of Rs. 24,92,806/-, which included GST, EPF, and ESIC, for services rendered under a contract involving skilled and unskilled manpower deployment. The District Magistrate's order found only Rs. 1,87,600/- due and payable, contingent upon the petitioner depositing Rs. 21,74,679/- towards EPF dues. The petitioner disputed the amount and argued that EPF payment was due only after full payment was received. The impugned order noted that the EPF amount payable by the petitioner related to past recoveries that the petitioner had failed to deposit for the workers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a dispute concerning the factual determination of amounts due and payable to the petitioner in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, given the existence of a factual dispute regarding the quantum of payment and the petitioner's liability for EPF dues. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner contended that the EPF amount was liable to be paid only after the full payment was received by it and disputed the amount found due by the District Magistrate. The petitioner sought payment of the contracted amount including GST. Respondent's contention: The State of U.P. and the other respondents did not record any specific contentions in the judgment regarding the petitioner's claims or the District Magistrate's findings. The judgment notes the finding of the District Magistrate that a significant EPF amount was due from the petitioner, relating to past un-deposited recoveries.