Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29880
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
P K HAMEED – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Advocate - SRI P PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA SRI P PARAMESWARAN NAIRASG OF INDIA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 10988/2012
Disputed factual matters regarding contract performance must be adjudicated in appropriate forums and not through writ petitions.
Headnote:
Contract - Petition - Arbitration and Civil Suit - Summary of Court's Reasoning
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions to finalize payments for work done under a contract for constructing a compound wall at a lighthouse, stating he completed 80% of the work, but faced difficulties and communication issues, leading to his desire to discontinue work.
Issues: Whether the court can direct payment and resolve disputes regarding the extent of work completed under a contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it would not adjudicate disputes of fact between parties, allowing the petitioner to seek remedies through civil suits or arbitration if stipulated in the contract.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of; remedies left open.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to finalise the bills and payments due to the petitioner within a time frame.
2. It is a case where the petitioner was awarded with a contract by the respondents. He had undertaken a work of a compound wall of Minicoy Light House as per Work Order No.IV – 4(17)/89 dated 13/02/2006 and almost 80% of the work had been completed by him. Since the petitioner found it difficult to continue the work due to certain inconveniences suffered by him and also due to non co-operation of the officials then in charge of the work, a letter was furnished by him on 30/03/2010 expressing his desire to discontinue the work. It is stated that in Ext.P1 communication, a joint measurement was offered by the second respondent but that was not conducted. The petitioner, thereafter, sought for a measurement at the earliest for enabling payment of the final bill. Again he was given a reply as per Ext.P2. It is stated by the petitioner that the measurement was taken in the first week of November, 2011 and even thereafter, no payments have been effected.
3. In the statement filed by the respondents, mainly it is pointed out that the petitioner has already received a payment of Rs.2,31,377/- and the balance can be settled after completion of the work by the new contractor as the contract with the petitioner was terminated at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The above contention is reiterated in para.13 of the statement. It is further pointed out in para.13 that the claim of the petitioner that he has completed 80% of the work is not correct and what was completed is only 43.77%.
4. Since the respondents are disputing the volume of work as well as the liability to pay the amount at this stage, this Court will not be justified in issuing any direction, as this Court will not be able to adjudicate any disputed questions of facts. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the non payment, it is upto him to resort to other remedies, namely, by filing a Civil Suit or by resort to Arbitration if the said process is provided in the contract executed by the petitioner. Leaving open the remedy of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
