Point of Law : Authorities have gone beyond the power under Section 38B of 'the Act of 1960' and wrongly redetermined the issue of family settlement, without any legal and vailid ground and wrongly doubted the family settlement only on basis of an assumption.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Respondent no.2 for payment of an amount which is stated to be due and admitted.

3. Pleadings in the petition indicate that in pursuance of certain advertisement inviting tenders for running community kitchen at Baijal Bhawan, Meerut and Olivia Hotel, Meerut, the petitioner company submitted its offer. It was duly accepted and in pursuance thereof, it provided the service of community kitchen at above two places during COVID period. By letter dated 4.6.2020, Respondent no.4 directed the petitioner to close the community kitchen w.e.f. 6.6.2020. A three member Committee had duly verified the quality and quantity of food packets supplied by the petitioner in pursuance of the contract. The petitioner has been paid certain sum under the contract, but the entire amount has not been paid on account of paucity of funds.

4. The petitioner has placed on record an order dated 5.3.2021 issued by A.D.M. Finance & Revenue, Meerut in which it is recorded that on basis of recommendation of the Committee and the approval granted by the District Magistrate, Meerut on 4.3.2021, the amount of Rs. 3,68,81,217/-received from the Government shall be disbursed amongst various service providers on pro-rata basis. The order itself records that the remaining amount would be paid after release of more funds from the Government. A chart which is part of the said order reveals that in respect of the petitioner, the remaining sum is Rs. 37,32,072/-. Since, the amount has not been paid to the petitioner despite repeated reminders, the instant petition has been filed for a mandamus to Respondent no. 2 to pay the remaining amount forthwith.

5. On 26.11.2021, a Coordinate Bench passed the following order:-

“Services of petitioner were requisitioned to meet out the sudden difficulties occurred due to Covid-19 pandemic. Such services were duly provided, and as per Annexure-8 to the writ petition the admitted dues payable to petitioner stands quantified at Rs.37,32,072/-. However, only the part of the amount has been paid on pro-rata basis depending upon the funds available. Remaining amount has been withheld due to non-availability of funds. Grievance of the petitioner is that though sufficient time has elapsed but the admitted dues have not been released, so far.

In the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the second respondent to examine the petitioner's grievance and file an affidavit clearly disclosing as to how much time would be required to release the dues to the petitioner, by the next date fixed.

Post this matter as fresh, once again, on 15th December, 2021.”

6. On 15.12.2021, the matter was again adjourned to enable the competent authority to examine the petitioner’s grievance and take necessary action.

7. Learned Standing Counsel is in receipt of instructions from the State Respondents in which the same stand has been taken i.e. as soon as the funds are received from the State Government, payment shall be made.

8. The question whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to enforce a contractual obligation against the State or its instrumentalities, by a aggrieved party, is no longer res integra. The law with regard to the maintainability of a writ petition in contractual matters is fairly well settled. It has been consistently held that there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition in such matters. The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may, however, be refused in case of money claims arising out of purely contractual obligations where there are serious disputed questions of fact with regard to the claims sought to be raised.

9. The legal position with regard to entertain ability of a writ petition in contractual matters where monetary claims are sought t