M/S Jaypee Projects Limited vs. The State Of Tripura And 4 Ors.

Held

The High Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable for ascertaining civil rights and liabilities based on disputed facts. The Court reasoned that while the power of High Courts under Article 226 is a basic feature of the Constitution, it is settled law that writ petitions should not be entertained when a statutory or contractual forum for redressal of grievances exists, and the matter involves disputed questions of fact. The Court noted that the petitioner had sought settlement through an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, which was under consideration. Given the existence of such alternative mechanisms within the contract and the presence of disputed facts, the writ petition was deemed not maintainable and was accordingly dismissed.

Facts

M/s Jaypee Projects Limited (the petitioner) was awarded a contract for the construction of the Tripura Legislative Assembly Building and new Secretariat. After successful completion and handover, the petitioner claimed outstanding dues, including an Escalation Bill, amounting to Rs. 27,46,96,122.55, along with 18% interest. The petitioner submitted multiple reminder letters for payment. The respondents indicated that remaining payments would be made subject to fund availability and finalization of time extensions/deviations. The petitioner also claimed a different amount of Rs. 16,87,99,319.20 in an additional affidavit. Disputed facts arose regarding the percentage of material and labour components for escalation, and the petitioner alleged no amount had been paid, while respondents indicated partial payment subject to conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can entertain a writ petition to adjudicate disputed civil rights and liabilities arising from a contract, particularly when alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are available? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought enforcement of constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A, and prayed for the payment of outstanding dues with interest. They relied on clauses of the agreement pertaining to final completion certificates, defect liability periods, and escalation of prices. They emphasized the successful completion of the work to the satisfaction of the respondents and attributed payment deferral solely to the non-grant of funds by the respondents. Respondents' arguments: The respondents did not explicitly present arguments on the maintainability of the writ petition in the provided text. However, the judgment notes that the respondents indicated payments would be made subject to fund availability and finalization of time extensions/deviations, and that disputed facts were not admitted by them. The judgment also refers to the existence of alternative dispute redressal mechanisms within the contract.