2022 Supreme(Gau) 397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manish Choudhury, J.
Abhijit Malakar, S/o Late Suresh Malakar and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam Rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Deptt. and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 2285 of 2018
Decided On : 09-06-2022

Point of Law: a writ petition involving contractual liability can be considered only in the event there is admission of liability certified by the respective Chief Engineer in the Works Department and in respect of other departments by the Head of the Departments.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 468/471/420 – Cheating and dishonesty - Forgery purpose of Cheating - Petitioners have joined together to institute this writ petition seeking inter alia a direction to respondent authorities to release forthwith an amount materials the petitioners claimed to have supplied to respondent authorities in connection with MGNREGA Scheme and also for a direction to initiate an investigation through Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI] with regard to payment made in connection with false bills submitted by unknown persons/proprietors for supply of materials under the MGNREGA Scheme in and for misuse of public money - exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary and it is not to be exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will be exercised subject to well recognition as self imposed limitations. In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law.- the unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court, there is no scope for interference. (Para 14)

Finding of the Court :

High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed - Present one is such a case which would require determination of several disputed questions of facts through both oral and documentary evidence with examination of witnesses from the parties in a trial and present writ proceeding is found to be not the proper and appropriate proceedings to determine such kind of disputed questions of facts - writ petition involving contractual liability can be considered only in the event there is admission of liability certified by respective Chief Engineer in Works Department and in respect of other departments by the Head of the Departments - There is no admission of liability by the concerned Chief Engineer and/or by Head of Department in the case in hand - Court is of the considered view that the disputes involved in this writ petition cannot be decided in a writ proceeding - Writ petition is not to be entertained - petition may not preclude the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate for proceedings before an appropriate forum as may be permitted under the law.

Result : Ordered Accordingly