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.

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 that has been entered into between them and the respondents and as they are demanding the payment of the amount, which is due to them pursuant to the execution of work carried out by them and as the claimed amount is undisputed, therefore, the petitions 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 petitioners is payable to the petitioners, nor such issues can be determined in writ jurisdiction. As per him, the issues raised in the writ petitions primarily are issues which require determination on the basis of the evidence that may be led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, as to whether any amount at all is due to the petitioners and if yes, then how much?, therefore, these issues cannot be decided by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that these highly disputed question of facts require adjudication in a Civil Court or by way of Arbitration.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (2004) 3 SCC 553, titled ABL International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. as well as Civil Appeal No. 6741 of 2024, titled Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. The Chief Executive Officer & Ors., submitted that in the light of these adjudications, the prayer of the petitioners can be granted to them. He also referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6039 of 2023, titled Deepak Manta Vs. State of H.P. & othersand CWP No. 7942 of 2021, titled Krishan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. &others, to substantiate his contentions.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General and having gone through the averments made in the writ petitions, this Court is of the considered view that the disputes as are being raised in these writ petitions cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. In terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as stands reiterated in the two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can go into a disputes arising out of a contract, in which one of the contracting party is either a State or instrumentality of the State. But then those are the circumstances wherein, the instrumentality of the State acts in an arbitrary manner, in a matter of