( 1 ) THE writ appeal is preferred against the judgment in Writ Petition No. 3570 of 1987 of the learned single judge, dismissing the writ petition holding that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the payment of amounts said to be due to the petitioner, arising purely out of a monetary transaction and that the petitioner has to seek his relief by filing a regular suit.

( 2 ) THE appellant is Baroda Cotton Company, Bombay, carrying on business as cotton merchants engaged in the supply of cotton of different varieties to several spinning mills in the country. It is the case of the appellant that cotton was sold to the second respondent through the first respondent under final invoice No. 1 dated 24/08/1982, for a total sum of Rs. 1,12,430. 53 and that the second respondent accepted the goods without any objections. It was further stated that, again, on 13/09/1982, another consignment of cotton was delivered to the second respondent under invoice No. 3 dated 1/08/1982, for a total sum of Rs. 1,20,118. 23 and that the same was received and accepted by the second respondent without any objections. It is stated that the second respondent made certain payments, leaving a balance of Rs. 1,96,396. 76 and neglected to pay the amount in spite of several requests. The appellant issued several notices to the second respondent requesting it for payment of the monies due and the second respondent requested for time for making payment on the ground that the second respondent was in a bad financial position. It is further stated that second respondent informed the appellant that the amount will be paid after the second respondent informed the appellant that the amount will be paid after the process of modernisation of its mills. The appellant, therefore, filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the attitude of the respondents of their failure to clear off the dues and in withholding the same, as illegal and arbitrary.

( 3 ) THE learned single judge who disposed of the writ petition observed that the relief sought for cannot be granted and that the appellant has to seek his remedy through a civil court.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, Sri Duba Mohana Rao, contended that the respondents are public authorities coming within the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India, as they answer the description of the word "state", within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution. He argued that the second respondent, having admitted the amounts as due to the appellant, cannot arbitrarily withhold payment and that a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the amounts admittedly due to the appellant should be issued. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the amounts said to be due to the appellant arise purely out of a monetary transaction based on contracts which are not statutory and that the respondents are not discharging any public duties in entering into such contracts and, therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce contractual obligations which are neither statutory nor arise out of any discharge of public functions by the respondents. The respondents also raised the plea that the second respondent-society is registered under the provisions of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, and it is neither a statutory body nor "state", within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Another objection to the maintainability of the claim is based on a declaration of the State Government in G. O. Ms. No. 449, Industries and Commerce (SPands) Department, dated 17/07/1982, declaring that the second respondent is a relief undertaking under the A. P. Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1971, by virtue of which the proceedings for recovery of the amount stand stayed.

( 5 ) THE question for consideration is whether a writ of mandamus can be issued against the second respondent for re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document