Choudhary Construction Through Its Proprietor Basant Kumar Choudhary vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Choudhary Construction, sought directions from the State respondents for payment of balance dues of Rs. 1,36,57,087/- for work done under Agreement No. SBD-01/2016-17. The petitioner also prayed for a decision on its representations and final bill, quashing of a letter initiating coercive proceedings, and a stay on recovery proceedings by Oriental Bank of Commerce. The work involved construction and supply of pipes, with a significant portion of the cost attributed to these pipes. The petitioner claimed that the delay in obtaining an excise duty exemption certificate and later the GST norms, along with issues like non-acquisition of land and local hindrances, caused project delays. The respondents denied these claims, stating they were excuses for the petitioner's delay. The respondents also claimed overdue amounts from the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. Citing the Supreme Court judgments in Punjab National Bank and Joshi Technologies International Inc., the Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised for complex factual disputes, especially when they involve money claims arising from contractual obligations, unless there are exceptional circumstances or admitted facts. The Court noted that the petitioner's claims regarding delays caused by the respondents were specifically denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit, and the respondents asserted that their actions were in line with the contract. The Court found that the payment claimed by the petitioner was not based on admitted facts and that both parties had raised factual pleas to support their respective claims. Therefore, such a dispute could not be adjudicated under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the parties to pursue remedies available under law, keeping in view the terms of the contract/agreement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable for adjudication of complex questions of fact arising from a contractual dispute, particularly when a money claim is involved? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the balance payment of Rs. 1,36,57,087/- for the work done, considering the alleged delays caused by the respondent authorities? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in the work was attributable to the respondent authorities' "indifferent approach," including delays in granting excise duty exemption certificates, quality assurance certificates, electrification work approvals, design works, foundation approvals, lead plan sanction, land acquisition, and issues with local inhabitants. These factors, coupled with the introduction of GST and the non-waiver of GST on pipes, led to escalated costs and delays. The petitioner relied on the fact that running bills were paid even after the contract period, implying an extension of time. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent authorities denied the petitioner's claims, characterizing them as "lame excuses" to justify the petitioner's "huge delay" in completing the work. They asserted that the recovery action was in accordance with the agreement terms, after preparing the final bill and adjusting all pending dues. The respondents argued that the payment claimed by the petitioner was not based on admitted facts and that their actions were in line with the contract conditions.