Court finds that disputed contract claims cannot be resolved in writ proceedings and dismisses the appeal.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MRs. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

28.05.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel, University Grants Commission, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. This intra-court appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 02.04.2025, passed in WP(C) No. 3575/2020, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, while observing that the impugned order shall not preclude the writ petitioner/appellant herein to exercise and opt for any other remedy available under the law for redressal of his grievance and the impugned order shall not be treated as any comment on the claim or counter claim of the contesting parties.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, being a contractor, was awarded a contract for construction of (a) swimming pool including boundary wall, changing room, toilet, store, pump house, plumbing, landscaping, tiles fitting, boring, septic tank, overhead tank, waterproofing, earthwork, construction of two rooms guest house with balcony and bathrooms on the top of the changing room, gallery of three rows on the one side of the boundary wall (civil, sanitary, water supply, electrical machinery etc.) and (b) supply, installation and commissioning of mechanical, electro-

mechanical equipments (on turnkey basis) etc.

4. The appellant claims that he has completed 70% of the work and as per the contract agreement he is entitled to get payment of Rs. 70,14,473/-. However, the respondent authority has made a payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 20,14,473/- has not been paid to him despite repeated demands.

5. The respondent college as well as the State respondents have refuted the claim of the appellant while contending that the appellant has failed to complete the construction work allotted to him and he abandoned the contract without any justifiable reason and, therefore, appellant is not entitled to get payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 20,14,473/- as claimed by him.

6. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the rival stand of the parties, has disposed of the writ petition while observing as under:

“12. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the agreement entered into between the parties for execution of the works as well as the work order.

13. In terms of the work order, the payment is required to be made for civil work according to the progress of the work and approved by the college construction committee and for purchase of imported electro mechanical equipments, 70% of the cost of the equipments will be given as an advance after due approval of the college construction committee.

14. From the aforesaid, it is seen that the contract is between an instrumentality of the State and the petitioner and from the pleading of both the parties, it is also seen that the dispute is relatable to breach of contract. On the one hand, the petitioner asserts that he could not execute the work for the fault of the respondent, particularly, for three reasons that (i) non removal of high tension electric line above the proposed swimming pool and (ii) the respondents have failed to adhere to the condition of 70% advance against the imported electro mechanical equipments and (iii) non-payment of the remaining due. On the other hand, the respondent No. 3 contends that they had already paid the running bill to the petitioner, the petitioner had abandoned the work and the authority has time removed the high tension electric line.

15. I