JUDGMENT

VINEET SARAN, CJ. - The case of the petitioner is that she was awarded a contract by Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation-opposite party no.2 to perform certain work, for which an agreement was executed on 16.11.2009. The said work was to be completed by 29.03.2010. According to the petitioner, the work was completed in the year 2010 and the bills for payment of the dues were submitted by her on 20.11.2011. Prior to that, according to the petitioner, the bills submitted by her were cross-checked by the Municipal Authorities on 01.06.2011. According to the petitioner, even though she had completed the work in the year 2010 and submitted all the bills in the year 2011, yet no payment was made to her by the opposite parties, for which she sent a legal notice to Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation on 17.09.2016 through her Advocate for payment of the dues. Even on the application seeking for information which was filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the opposite parties did not give any response. She, thus, has field this writ petition claiming payment of outstanding bills from Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. From the facts as stated above, what we notice is that no acknowledgement of any amount due to the petitioner has been made at any stage by Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. Admittedly, the work was completed in the year 2010 and the bills were submitted in the year 2011. The cause of action arose after the work was completed in the year 2010, or at best, at the stage when the bills were submitted by the petitioner. Limitation for filing of a money suit for claiming any amount from Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation for the work done and completed by the petitioner in the year 2010 would be three years, either from 2010 when the work was completed, or from 2011, when the bills were submitted by her. Such limitation period having expired, the petitioner then sent a legal notice in the year 2016, which is six years after completion of the work. Since there was no response, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, much after the period of limitation had expired even for filing a money suit.

3. Besides that, disputed questions of fact are involved in this writ petition for which evidence will have to be led by the parties for deciding the issues involved, which cannot be done in the writ jurisdiction. We are also of the opinion that when the claim of the petitioner is time barred even for filing a suit, the same cannot be revived by invoking writ jurisdiction. Normally, under the writ jurisdiction, the Court could at best interfere when the statutory authorities have acknowledged or admitted certain dues, which are to be paid and not being paid by such authorities and that too, when the claim is filed within a reasonable period. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to produce any document to show that there are admitted dues of the petitioner, which are to be paid by Bhubaneswar Corporation.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of Sri Padma Charan Patra-v- State of Orissa and others, reported in 2010(II) OLR 355, wherein this Court at paragraph-13 of the said judgment has held as follows:

“13. The State of Orissa filed its counter affidavit contending that the petitioner has no cause of action for filing the present writ application and the same is liable to be dismissed. The agreement No. 305F dated 19.11.2004 has been closed with levy of penalty by the Chief Engineer (DPI and Roads) on 07.12.2007, which was communicated to the petitioner on 17.12.2007. It was contended that notwithstanding the cooperation of the department, the petitioner could not complete the work in time and has prayed for extension of time, which was also allowed to the petitioner. As the work was not completed in time, keeping in view the escalation and estimate and suffering of public, it was felt necessary to close the contra