M/S Munna @ Jagmohan Yadav vs. State Of U P And 6 Others

Held

The Court held that it would not be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in this matter. The Court found that the dispute involved several issues of fact that needed to be determined by the competent authority. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was essentially seeking a decree in a civil suit, which is not the appropriate remedy in writ proceedings, especially given the nature of the issues involved. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not meant for resolving complex contractual disputes involving disputed questions of fact, for which alternative remedies under common law are available. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue their remedy under common law.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Munna @ Jagmohan Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to pay a balance amount of Rs. 20,30,000/- plus GST @ 12%. The petitioner claimed this amount was outstanding for work done under a contract. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the dispute involved complex questions of fact related to payment of dues arising from contract work. The respondents relied on a previous judgment of a coordinate bench of the High Court in a similar contractual matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide disputed questions of fact concerning payment of dues arising from a contract, thereby effectively seeking a decree in a civil suit? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a mandamus for the payment of outstanding dues for work performed. The specific arguments made by the petitioner are not detailed in the judgment beyond the prayer for payment. Respondent's contention: The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because it involved disputed questions of fact. They contended that the relief sought by the petitioner was akin to a decree in a civil suit, which cannot be granted in writ proceedings. They relied on the judgment in M/s R.S. Associate vs. State of U.P. (Writ-C No.-11544 of 2014) to support their argument that the Court should not exercise jurisdiction in such contractual matters involving factual disputes.