Arvind Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Held

The Court held that entertaining the writ petition would virtually amount to issuing a money decree, which is not appropriate for the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that issues concerning the satisfactory completion of work, rates, and proper execution are factual matters that need to be determined by a competent authority, not by the High Court under Article 226. The Court relied on its previous decision in M/s R.S. Associate v. State of U.P. and others, which declined similar relief in a contractual matter, stating that the exercise of writ jurisdiction is not warranted for what is essentially a claim for a civil suit decree. The Court found that several factual issues needed determination, making writ jurisdiction unsuitable. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the petition and relegated the petitioner to pursue ordinary civil remedies or arbitration if an arbitration agreement existed.

Facts

The petitioner, Arvind Singh, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondent no. 4 (presumably an authority of the Zila Panchayat, Varanasi) to pay the balance amount for a construction work (Village Jagatipur Nala evam Jal Nikasi, Work Sl. No. 372, Block Sevapuri, District Varanasi). The petitioner claimed the work was completed satisfactorily. The respondents, however, stated that payment would be decided only after the State Government determined the liability for GST, contingent on the nature of the work performed. The High Court noted that granting the relief sought would essentially be a money decree and that the petitioner should pursue ordinary civil remedies or arbitration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can entertain a petition seeking payment of balance dues for a completed construction contract, which would amount to a money decree? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a mandamus for payment of the balance amount due for completed work. (No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited by the petitioner in the judgment). Respondent's contention: The respondents argued that the decision on payment, including GST liability, was pending the State Government's satisfaction with the work and its nature. They did not explicitly argue against the High Court's jurisdiction but indicated the matter was subject to further governmental decision-making. (No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited by the respondents in the judgment).