Writ petitions for recovery of contractual dues are not maintainable when an arbitration clause exists, and claims made after significant delays are barred.

JUDGMENT :

H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.

1. The petitioner by this application under Article 226 is before this Court with a prayer for directions to issue to the Respondent Corporation for release of outstanding bills of the Petitioner Enterprise amounting to Rs.1,80,24,719/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Lakhs Twenty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Nineteen) only and Rs.1,02,36,278 (Rupees One Crore Two Lakhs Thirty-Six Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy-Eight) only with regard to service charges on successful completion of the contract work with the respondent.

2. The brief facts are that the Petitioner Enterprise in the year 2006, was awarded with a contract by the Respondent Corporation under the APDRP Project for reconductoring, feeder bifurcation and construction of new feeders, Package-C in the Eastern Circle (Supply and Erection contract) in Jaintia Hills District, and that the said project was completed in the year 2008. A completion certificate was issued by the Respondent Corporation after payment of outstanding dues. Apart from this contract, the Respondent Corporation had also awarded contracts to the Petitioner Enterprise for supply of various materials required for implementing the Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojna (RGGVY) Scheme at the cost of Rs.27,00,07,294/- (Rupees Twenty-Seven Crores Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety-Four) only referred to as the first contract or Supply contract. By another letter dated 16.07.2007, the Petitioner Enterprise was awarded a contract for all services including inland transportation insurance, handling, storage at site, erection, testing and commissioning of all equipment for supply of service connections to BPL consumers at a cost of Rs.2,00,54,100/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty-Four Thousand and One Hundred) only referred to as the second contract or Erection contract. A formal contract was then executed on 25.10.2007 between the parties.

3. Thereafter, in the course of the work and other developments, the Petitioner Enterprise by a letter dated 06.06.2013, while acknowledging receipt of certain payments, had requested for release of Rs.1,02,36,278/- (Rupees One Crores Two Lakhs Thirty-Six Thousand Two Hundred Seventy-Eight) only which he alleged had been erroneously withheld against the excess payment of service tax, inasmuch as, while quoting the rate for Supply and Erection, the rate quoted had been quoted inclusive of all taxes and duties, and as such there was no question of excess payment. Further claims were also made from the Respondent Corporation in relation to return of surplus materials which were not utilized for the project and as per the statement of the Petitioner Enterprise on this account, the balance due from the Respondent Corporation stood at Rs.1,95,15,528/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety-Five Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty-Eight) only. Further communications on this aspect with regard to payment of balance amount due and return of surplus materials continued between the Petitioner Enterprise and the Respondent Corporation.

4. It appears thereafter, the Respondent Corporation by a letter dated 07.08.2014, called the petitioner for a meeting with regard to the payment of service tax on the RGGVY Scheme and the petitioner was asked to bring all supporting documents. The said meeting took place on 26.08.2014, and as per the minutes generated which have been placed on record, it was observed by the Chief Engineer of the Respondent Corporation that outstanding bills of the Petitioner’s Enterprise be processed for payment, with due compliance of audit observation in