Manjar Hussain vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court held that the present petition arises out of contractual liabilities and involves disputed questions of fact, specifically regarding the petitioner's failure to deposit installments. The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Uflex Limited, Caretel Infotech Ltd., Tata Cellular, and Surjeet Singh Sahni to establish that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable for the enforcement of contracts. The Court noted that the petitioner admittedly did not deposit the installments and that the reasons cited (demonetization, lockdown, GST) did not necessarily absolve him of his contractual obligations, especially since demonetization would not affect payment capacity via cheque or bank draft. The Court found no deficiency in the decision-making process that would warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the petition for enforcement of contract was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail statutory remedies under civil law.

Facts

The petitioner, Manjar Hussain, was granted two contracts for collecting Tendu leaves for the period April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019. He was required to deposit money in installments. The petitioner failed to pay installments, citing demonetization, lockdown, and the imposition of GST. Consequently, the Forest Division Officer, Sidhi (Respondent No. 3), issued demand notices dated August 30, 2022, and January 9, 2023, raising a demand of Rs. 32,21,433/- for lot No. 611 and Rs. 15,80,256/- for lot No. 614. The petitioner claims his deposited security amount has not been adjusted. He filed a representation on July 5, 2023, which remains undecided. The writ petition seeks to direct the respondent to decide the representation, quash the demand notices, and grant an opportunity of being heard.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition for the enforcement of contractual liabilities, particularly when disputed questions of fact are involved regarding the reasons for non-payment of installments? (This issue turns on the scope of judicial review in contractual matters and the maintainability of writ petitions for specific performance of contracts). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought directions to decide his representation and quash the demand notices. He argued that his non-payment was due to demonetization, lockdown, and GST imposition, and that his security deposit had not been adjusted. He implicitly argued for the court's intervention to resolve these issues. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, through the High Court's analysis, contended that the matter arises out of contractual liabilities. The court's reasoning, citing Supreme Court judgments, suggests the respondents would argue that writ jurisdiction is not appropriate for enforcing contracts and that the petitioner has alternative civil remedies.