M/S M.P. Khaitan vs. The Tripura University And Ors.

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for the petitioner. The Court found that the dispute primarily arose from the execution of works under a contract between the petitioner and EPIL, and Tripura University was not privy to this sub-contract. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning was that issues of fact and the construction of terms and conditions between the petitioner and EPIL, and between TU and EPIL, could only be properly gone into before an agreed forum for dispute resolution or a competent Civil Court. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum for relief. The Court did not decide on the merits of the GST rate dispute or the release of dues.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s M.P. Khaitan, a partnership firm, was a sub-contractor to M/s Engineering Projects (India) Limited (EPIL) for the labour component of a project awarded by Tripura University (TU) to EPIL. The petitioner completed the work on 28.12.2018. However, EPIL has not released the security deposit of Rs.1,65,82,247/-, outstanding dues of Rs.31,23,309/-, and a price variation claim of Rs.1,88,98,395.13. The petitioner apprehended that GST at the enhanced rate of 18% would be levied on these dues, whereas the work was executed when the rate was 12%. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking release of dues, interest, and a direction to refrain from levying GST at the higher rate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against Tripura University (TU) for the release of dues owed by M/s Engineering Projects (India) Limited (EPIL) to the petitioner, considering TU is not privy to the sub-contract between the petitioner and EPIL? 2. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can adjudicate on disputes concerning the interpretation of contract terms, factual disputes regarding work completion, and financial claims between a sub-contractor and a main contractor, especially when an alternative dispute resolution mechanism like arbitration is available? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that TU, as the original awarding authority, has a role in ensuring the release of funds. They relied on various clauses of the contract between TU and EPIL, including those pertaining to completion period, price variation, and dispute resolution, to assert the legitimacy of their claims and the applicability of the lower GST rate. They contended that time was not the essence of the contract and that extensions were granted without penalties. Respondents' (Tripura University) arguments: The respondent-TU argued that the writ petition is not maintainable against them as they have no direct contractual relationship with the petitioner. They asserted that the dispute is primarily between the petitioner and EPIL, and any grievances should be addressed through arbitration or a competent civil court, as stipulated in the contract. They further argued that the writ petition involves complex questions of fact and contract interpretation, which are not suitable for writ jurisdiction.