Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10192
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, G. GIRISH, JJ
V.C.Suresh – Appellant
Versus
Travancore Devaswom Board – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2087 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Madhu, C. Saradamani, R. Anilkumar, Renjish S. Menon, Vrinda T. Aiswarya Jayapal
For the Respondents: G. Biju
Writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable for purely contractual disputes, as the appropriate remedy lies in civil litigation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - The Court addressed disputes regarding the invocation of writ jurisdiction over contractual obligations, asserting that such disputes should be adjudicated in civil courts, as established in State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. - Issues of contractual nature cannot be resolved under writ jurisdiction when alternative remedies are available. (Paras 5-16)
(B) Jurisdiction - Court emphasized the non-maintainability of writ petitions concerning purely contractual matters without statutory backing, reaffirming precedent that civil remedies are more appropriate for enforcing such obligations. (Paras 16-19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the sole proprietor of an electrical services business, sought a writ of mandamus for payments due under a contract with the Travancore Devaswom Board related to construction works.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that it cannot entertain the writ petition due to lack of maintainability as the contractual obligations were private in nature.
Issues: The main question was whether the petitioner could invoke writ jurisdiction for disbursement of dues under a contractual obligation.
Ratio Decidendi: The writ jurisdiction was deemed inappropriate for resolving contractual disputes as established by judicial precedents, requiring such matters to be adjudicated in ordinary civil courts.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner is sole proprietor seeking relief. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments about maintainability of the writ petition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. writ petitions not for breach of contract. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. distinction of public vs. private law in contracts. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. writ not maintainable for purely contractual obligations. (Para 18) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed due to maintainability issue. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who is stated to be the sole proprietor of M/s.Muruga Electricals, which was awarded the work of electrification of the newly constructed toilet blocks at Erumeli Devaswom and other construction works in the Devaswoms under the management of the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Board and its officials, namely respondents 2 to 5, to disburse the amounts covered by [Sic: mentioned in] Ext.P2 lawyer notice dated 25.10.2023, as expeditiously as possible, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the respondents to pay or reimburse the GST payable in respect of the amounts covered by [Sic: mentioned in] Ext.P2.
2. On 18.01.2024, when this matter came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to address arguments on the maintainability of the writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board.
4. The issue that requires consideration is as to whether the petitioner, who has been awarded with certain contract works in Erumeli Devaswom and other Devaswoms under the management of the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Board to disburse the amounts mentioned in Ext.P2 lawyer notice dated 25.10.2022.
5. In State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 216] the Apex Court reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the proper procedure for adjudicating disputes relating to the enforcement of contractual obligations. Under the law, it was open to the respondent to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach of contract. It is settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence of an alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue a writ, but ordinarily, that would be a good ground for refusing to exercise the discretion under . It is true that many matters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a ground for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under of the Constitution in case of an alleged breach of contract. Whether the alleged non-supply of road permits by the appellants would justify a breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising the prerogative of issuing writs.
6. InNational Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises [(2003) 7 SCC 410] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the respondent had filed a writ petition before the High Court for refund of the amount. The High Court posed two questions, namely, (a) whether the forfeiture of the security deposit is wit
