Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15243
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J
ARUP BAKSHI – Appellant
Versus
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. AND 3 ORS. – Respondent
WP(C)/3508/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R Dhar, A Dey
For the Respondents: SC, BSNL, R Thadani, B Pathak, B C Pathak
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 in contractual payment disputes is limited to the release of admitted amounts; any disputed claims must be resolved through appropriate legal proceedings or arbitration.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed Questions of Fact - In matters concerning the release of contractual bills, the scope of interference under Article 226 is limited and cannot extend to disputed questions of fact, but may be exercised regarding admitted amounts. (Para 6)
(B) Contractual Payments - Admitted Amount - Where a specific amount is admitted by the respondents subject to the production of necessary documentation (such as GST documents), the court may direct the release of such amount upon verification. (Para 7, 8)
(C) Dispute Resolution - Arbitration - Claims beyond the admitted amount in a contract containing an arbitration clause should be pursued through appropriate legal proceedings or arbitration. (Para 8, 9)
Issues: Whether the Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct the payment of disputed contractual bills.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks mandamus for payment of bills for completed infrastructure maintenance work. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over the quantification of the claim and the necessity of gst documentation for payment. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. writ jurisdiction is limited to admitted amounts and cannot resolve disputed questions of fact in contracts. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. admitted amounts are released upon document verification, while further claims are referred to arbitration. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
“In the premises aforesaid, Your Petitioner humbly prays that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records of the case and issue a Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order should not be issued directing the respondents to make payment of the admitted bill amount of Rs.73,13,437/- along with interest @ 12% for such delayed payment and/or issue such other Writ, Direction or order to give full and complete relief to the Petitioner and on hearing cause or causes shown and on perusal of the record be pleased to make the Rule absolute and / or to pass such further or other order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”
2. As per the facts projected, pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for Infrastructure Maintenance of Exchanges, Mobile BTS and Land Line including Office Maintenance Works and guarding of vital BSNL Installation in Bongaigaon Telecom District, in which the petitioner had participated, the work was duly allotted to the petitioner. The work was completed in all respects and a bill of Rs. 87,53,710.94 was raised. However, the bill was not paid in full and therefore, the present writ petition.
3. I have heard Shri A. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri B. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, B.S.N.L.
4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dey has clarified that though when the writ petition was instituted, the amount claimed which is revealed from the prayer was Rs. 73,13,437/-, in the rejoinder affidavit, such amount has been quantified to be Rs. 13,93,783/-. He has submitted that the claim is bona fide and genuine and there are no reasons for withholding the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also informed that so far as the G.S.T. documents are concerned, the same have already been enclosed in the rejoinder affidavit.
5. On the other hand, Shri Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, B.S.N.L. has submitted that as observed above, the initial claim was Rs. 73,13,437/-, however, in the rejoinder affidavit filed on 05.06.2025, the claim has been reduced to Rs. Rs. 13,93,783/-. He has submitted that the respondents dispute the said claim. However, he has added that so far as an amount of Rs.6,86,694.05 is concerned, the same has been withheld on account of non-furnishing of G.S.T. documents and the same would be released to the petitioner as and when such documents are furnished. He has further submitted that the G.S.T. documents enclosed in the rejoinder affidavit would not be sufficient as some other relevant documents are required.
6. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot deal in matters where there are disputed question of facts. In the instant case, there is a claim for release of contractual bills and in such matters, the scope of interference is limited and can be to the aspect of any admitted amount.
7. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 on 08.01.2021 in paragraph 6, there is an admission of payment of an amount of Rs. 6,86,694.05 which is, however, subject to production of appropriate G.S.T. documents. This Court has already noted above that there is a change in the quantum of the claim which is clarifi
