Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6651
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
GOPAKUMAR.S – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WP(C) 25516/2022
V.A.AJIVAS, Biju SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER; SRI G.BIJU -STANDING COUNSEL-TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
Writ petitions cannot be used to enforce purely contractual obligations absent statutory backing; such disputes must be resolved in civil courts.
Headnote:
Contract - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Jurisprudential Interpretations - The court clarified that writs cannot be issued for purely contractual obligations absent statutory elements, emphasizing that disputes over contracts should be resolved in civil courts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contractor, sought a writ of mandamus for payment regarding a completed contract for construction work awarded by the Travancore Devaswom Board, alleging non-payment and seeking interest. The Board claimed ongoing disputes regarding the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contract was of a non-statutory nature and any disputes related to it were to be resolved in civil courts. The petitioner could not claim a writ mandamus since the obligations were purely contractual and lacked a public duty component.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the writ petition was maintainable given the contractual nature of the relationship between the parties and the existence of alternative remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not ordinarily extend to disputes arising from pure contractual obligations. If a contract is non-statutory, matters should be adjudicated in civil court, especially when disputes require factual evidence.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed due to maintainability; no costs awarded.
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner is a licensed Public Works contractor, who was awarded with the contract work of construction of the compound wall of Kunjayyappan Devaswom, Chadayamangalam, in terms of Ext.P2 selection notice dated 22.11.2017. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 3 to 6 to pay the bill submitted by the petitioner in respect of the said contract work, for which there is no dispute and disburse the payment together with 18% interest, within a time limit to be stipulated by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Devaswom Commissioner to consider Ext.P7 representation dated 18.07.2022 made by the petitioner before the said respondent and also the 3rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board and take an appropriate decision thereon, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within the time limit to be prescribed by this Court.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, by Ext.P1 communication dated 10.05.2017 of the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, the 4th respondent Chief Engineer (General) was informed that the Board has accorded administrative sanction for the construction work of compound wall of Kunjayyappan Devaswom, Chadayamangalam, under Kottarakkara Group, at an estimated cost of Rs.16,20,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Twenty Thousand only). As discernible from Ext.P2 selection notice dated 22.11.2017, the work was awarded to the petitioner, who quoted 18% below the estimated PAC. The document marked as Ext.P3 is an internal communication of the 6th respondent Assistant Engineer, Kottarakara addressed to the 5th respondent Executive Engineer (Estate Division), wherein it is stated that the petitioner commenced the work on 10.07.2019 and completed the work in all respects, except the area where a dispute exists with the public. A reading of Ext.P3 would show that the 6th respondent Assistant Engineer addressed the said communication to the 5th respondent Executive Engineer based on Ext.P4 representation dated 13.01.2020 made by the petitioner to close the final bill, except the area where there exist certain disputes. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation dated 04.11.2020 before the 4th respondent Chief Engineer (General), followed by Ext.P6 representation dated 14.02.2022 before the 6th respondent Assistant Engineer and those representations were followed by Ext.P7 representation dated 18.07.2022 before respondents 1 and 3 to 6. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents
1 to 6 and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 7th respondent Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department.
4. On the question of maintainability of this writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would place reliance on the decisions of this Court inMurugan v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2023:KER:25822] - judgment dated 13.04.2023 in W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 - andSITCO Associates v. State of Kerala [2023:KER: 10029 ] - judgment dated 01.02.2023 in W.P.(C)No.8407 of 2022.
5. InState 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
