Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Parveen Singh Bandh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court with the prayer that in the course of the execution of the contract work allotted to them by the respondent-State, as there are certain amounts due to them, which are not being paid by the respondent-State, therefore, amandamus be issued directing the respondents to pay due and admissible amount to the petitioners, as mentioned in each of the writ petitions. Prayers made in CWP No. 2086 of 2025, are quoted hereinbelow:-
“(i) That a writ in nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued to the respondents thereby directing the respondents to make payment of the final bill submitted by the petitioner qua the work in question, within time bound period.
(ii) That the respondents be also directed to pay interest to the petitioner on the amount of Rs. 17,29,556/- payable at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of submission of bill on 2021 to till date of actual payment of amount.”
Similar prayers are there in all petitions, though amount claimed is different.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners have executed the works in accordance with the contract tha
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.
Disputed claims for contract payments cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction and must be adjudicated in a Civil Court or through Arbitration.
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.
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 jurisdiction is not suitable for resolving contractual disputes involving disputed facts; such matters should be adjudicated in civil courts or through arbitration.
Writ petitions against State for contractual obligations are maintainable even with disputed facts; non-payment of dues despite work completion warrants judicial intervention.
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.
Writ petitions against the State for contractual obligations are maintainable even with disputed facts; courts can direct payment when liability is clear.
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
