Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Rajender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ajay Mohan Goel, J.)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that in the course of the execution of the contract work allotted to him by the respondent-State, as there are certain amounts due to him, which are not being paid by the respondent-State, therefore, a mandamus be issued directing the respondents to pay due and admissible amount to the petitioner, as mentioned in the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has executed the works in accordance with the contract that has been entered into between him and the respondents and as he is demanding the payment of the amount, which is due to him pursuant to the execution of work carried out by him and as the claimed amount is undisputed, therefore, the petition be allowed and a mandamus be issued, as prayed for.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General on instructions has taken a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that neither the respondents admit that the amount as is being claimed by the petitioner is payable to the petitioners, nor such issues can be determin
Disputed claims for contract payments cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction and must be adjudicated in a Civil Court or through Arbitration.
Writ petitions for recovery of amounts due under contract are not maintainable when claims are disputed; such matters should be resolved in Civil Court or through Arbitration.
Writ jurisdiction is not suitable for resolving contractual disputes involving disputed facts; such matters should be adjudicated in civil courts or through arbitration.
Reimbursement of amount - Entitlement of - Grant of relief of this nature would virtually amount to a money decree. Petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to remedies available by raising such a c....
Writ petitions against State entities for payment of due amounts are maintainable even with disputed facts; contract completion obligates the State to release funds promptly.
Writ petitions against State for contractual obligations are maintainable even with disputed facts; non-payment of dues despite work completion warrants judicial intervention.
A petitioner must exhaust contractual dispute resolution mechanisms before seeking intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A writ petition can be maintained against the State for contractual obligations even in the presence of disputed facts, ensuring fair treatment under Article 14.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
