Writ jurisdiction is maintained for recovery of admitted dues in contracts involving State entities, despite alternative remedies under the MSMED Act.

JUDGMENT

[ WP(C).35597/2019, WP(C).27660/2019, WP(C).30701/2019, WP(C).30826/2019, WP(C).31181/2019, WP(C).31202/2019, WP(C).31220/2019, WP(C).31225/2019, WP(C).31714/2019, WP(C).31925/2019, WP(C).31948/2019, WP(C).32074/2019, WP(C).32159/2019, WP(C).32503/2019, WP(C).32577/2019, WP(C).32610/2019, WP(C).33286/2019, WP(C).33430/2019, WP(C).33435/2019, WP(C).33466/2019, WP(C).33726/2019, WP(C).34741/2019, WP(C).34913/2019, WP(C).34930/2019, WP(C).35721/2019, WP(C).652/2020, WP(C).813/2020 ]

Dated this the 9th day of March 2020

JUDGMENT

1.All these writ petitions are essentially filed seeking payment of amounts due from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL for short) towards the petitioners who have undertaken contract works. The petitioners contend that they are entitled to the payment of amounts which are essentially admitted by the BSNL. They contend that the refusal on the part of the BSNL to release the amounts due after extracting the work from them is completely unsustainable in law.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents as assisted by the respective standing counsel.

3.Counter affidavits have been filed in many of these cases. In the counter affidavits filed, it is contended that the amounts claimed are in respect of contractual claims between the parties and in the absence of specific admission of the amounts by the respondents, these writ petitions would not be maintainable before this Court. It is contended that in some of these cases, no bills are produced and that even the nature of the work undertaken and the amounts due are not properly mentioned. It is stated that the question whether any amount is liable to be paid in terms of the contract between the parties is a question of fact which can be decided only after taking evidence and that this Court should not consider the writ petitions. In some of these cases, it is contended that the petitioners are Micro, Small or Medium Enterprises which are covered by the provisions of the Micro Small and Medium Enterpises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act for short) and there is a bar to claim any relief for goods supplied or services rendered before any court, expect in terms of Chapter 5 of the said special enactment.

4.Apart from placing affidavits on record in these cases, the learned Senior Counsel has also made available a breakup of cases for the convenience of this Court.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on a decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in State of Kerala and others v. T.V.Anil [2002 (1) KLT 371 (FB)]. After considering the case law on the point, the Full Bench held that it cannot be said in absolute terms that a writ petition is not maintainable in contractual matters including where the Contractors seek enforcement of the obligation on the part of the State to pay the admitted bill amounts. It was held that there is a public law element in contracts where the State is a party, and that it follows that there is public duty involved and therefore the High Court will be well within its jurisdiction to consider the writ petitions seeking payment of amounts admittedly due.

6.The learned Senior Counsel on the other hand relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi [ AIR 1959 SC 942 ], D.L.F.Housing Construction (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation and others [(1976) 3 SCC 160] M/s.Burmah Construction Co. v. State of Orissa and others [AIR 1962 SC 1320], K.S.Rashid and son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission, etc. [1954 SCR 738, N.T.Abraham v. State of Kerala and others [(1999) 9 SCC 280] , Central Bank of India v. Rooplal Bansal [(1999) 9 SCC 254], Jai Singh v. Union of India and others [(1977) 1 SCC 1]. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the decisions of the Apex Court are authority on the point that factual aspects cannot be investigated in writ proceedings and that wh