Point of Law:
it cannot be held in absolute terms that a writ petition is not maintainable in all contractual matters seeking enforcement of obligations on part of the State or its authorities. The limitation in exercising powers under Article 226 in contractual matters is essentially a self-imposed restriction. A case where the amount is admitted and there is no disputed question of fact requiring adjudication of detailed evidence and interpretation of the terms of the contract, may be an exception to the aforementioned general principle.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Arun Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the three connected writ petitions, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5.

2. All the three writ petitions relate to similar facts and raise common questions of law, therefore, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the three petitions have been heard together and are being decided by means of a common judgment.

3. In all the three writ petitions, the principal relief sought is with regard to certain claims for payment of contractual amounts in terms of agreements said to have been executed between the parties.

4. Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 5 has raised objections with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners seek to enforce certain contractual rights and obligations for which the appropriate remedy is to approach the civil court, or if there is any dispute with regard to the terms of the agreement, then in that case, the remedy is to invoke the arbitration clause under the agreement. He submits that the writ petitions are not liable to be entertained for the reliefs which have been prayed for.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in M/s Lalloo Ji Rajiv Chandra And Sons vs. Meladhikari Prayagraj Mela Authority and others, (2019) ADJ Online 0081, M/S Friscon Media Works vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others, Writ - C No.8104 of 2020, decided on 05.03.2020 and M/S Odyssey Computers through Marketing Manager Sri Ajai Singh vs. State Of U.P. and others, Miscellaneous Bench No.14618 of 2017, decided on 07.07.2017.

6. Responding to the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition, counsel appearing for the petitioners have sought to contend that there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition even in contractual matters where there are disputed questions of fact or even where monetary claims are sought to be raised.

7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, the facts relating to the writ petitions may be briefly adverted to.

8. Writ-C No.13388 of 2020 has been filed principally seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 Managing Director, Purvanchal Vidhut Vitrana Nigam Ltd., DLW, Varanasi, to release an amount of Rs. 10,78,990/to the petitioner relating to contractual payments, which the petitioner claims to be due.

9. It is submitted that after completion of the work the petitioner submitted the bills and thereafter despite several requests and representations made by the petitioner, the respondents have not made payment of the amounts which are said to be due to the petitioner as per the terms of the agreements.

10. The pleadings in the writ petition indicate that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with respondent no.4 to carry out the work of shifting of 11KV, LT line & transformer against ETender No.69/SE/EUDC1A/KM/2018-19 for a sum of Rs. 15,22,436.28 and of ETender No.70/SE/EUDC1A/KM/2018-19 for a sum of Rs.3,39,290.00. The above agreements are stated to have been entered into between the parties pursuant to L.O.I. issued vide letters dated 24.9.2018.

11. In Writ - C No.12479 of 2020, a claim is sought to be raised for payment of an amount of Rs.7,51,000/- alongwith interest in respect of certain work stated to have been completed by the petitioner pursuant to award of a contract relating to civil works. The payment has been claimed in terms of an agreement executed between the parties and the petitioner has asserted that despite reminders, the amount in question has not been paid.

12. Writ - C No.12480 of 2020 has been filed raising a similar claim with regard to the payment of an amount of Rs.10.11 lacs alongwith interest. In this case also, the petitioner claims to have been awarded a contrac