Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(DIVISION BENCH)
Mohammad Rafiq, CJ and Prakash Shrivastava, J.
Alok Kumar Choubey v. State of M.P. & Others
Writ Petition No. 1874 of 2019 (Jabalpur); Decided on 5.1.2021
(1) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- efficacious alternative remedy -- word 'efficacious' is adjective -- noun is 'efficacy' -- derived from Latin word 'efficacie' which means capacity to produce results -- 'efficacious' means able to produce intended effect or result. AIR 1981 Gau. 15 relied on. [Para 6]
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- maintainability of writ petition -- alternative remedy -- seven well recognized exceptions to rule of alternative remedy culled out.
Held : Seven well recognized exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy,which can be culled out from the afore-discussed judgments of the Supreme Court for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, can be summarized thus: (i) where the writ petition has beenfiled for enforcement of fundamental rights; (ii) where there has been violation of principle of natural justice; (iii) where the order of proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction; (iv) where the vires of any Act is under challenge; (v) where availing of alternative remedy subjects a person to very lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment; (vi) where the writ petition can be entertained despite alternative remedy if the question raised is purely legal one, there being no dispute on facts; and (vii) where State or its intermediary in a contractual matter acts against public good/interest unjustly, unfairly, unreasonably and arbitrarily. Despite afore-noted exceptions, especially fifth and seventh of the above, whether or not in a particular case the writ Court should entertain a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India rather than requiring the petitioner to avail alternative remedy, would always depend on the facts situation of a given case, upon the petitioner making out a strong case. If it is shown that the facts of the case are not disputed and the Government or its instrumentality has been found acting unjustly, unfairly and unreasonablyeven in regard to its contractual obligations, the High Court would bejustified in entertaining the writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy. AIR 1967 SC 1081, 1968 JLJ 926 (SC), (1988) 1 SCC 401, (2011) 2SCC 439, (1998) 8 SCC 1, AIR 1961 SC 1506, AIR 1961 SC 372, (2000) 10 SCC 482, (2001) 8 SCC 344, (2001) 10 SCC 740, AIR 2005 SC 3936, (2010) 11 SCC 186 and (2015) 7 SCC 728 followed. (1939) 2 KB 838 referred to. [Para 16]
(3) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- maintainability of writ petition -- instrumentality of State acts contrary to public good, public interest unfairly, unjustly, unreasonably, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 in its contractual or statutory obligation -- writ petition maintainable. [Para 17]
(4) Contract -- performance guarantee/security valid up tothree months beyond completion of defect liability period(maintenance guarantee period) -- not justified to claim that additional period of three months would also be part of defect liability period -- withholding amount of performance guarantee (security) of petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable, being violative of Art. 14 of Constitution. (2019) 19 SCC 9 followed. [Paras 19 & 21]
(5) Contract -- interpretation -- contract between parties is to be interpreted giving actual meaning to words contained in contract - not permissible for Court to make new contract, howsoever reasonable, if parties have not made it themselves -- it is to be interpreted in such a way that its terms may not be varied -- has to be interpreted without any outside aid -- terms of contract have to be construed strictly without altering nature of contract, as it may affect interest of either party adversely. [Para 20]
(6) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 -- S. 17 -- maintainability of writ petition -- availability of alternative remedy -- contract -- facts not in dispute -- established to satisfaction of Court that respondents acted arbitrarily and contrary to relevant stipulations in agreement and contract data -- availability of al ternative remedy cannot justify rejection of writ petition on specious plea ofalternative remedy -- in facts of this case, alternative remedy of dispute resolution by way of application to competent authority and thereafter to appellate authority and thereafter to Arbitration Tribunal cannot be taken as efficacious alternative remedy, particularly when S. 17 of Adhiniyam bars Tribunal from granting interim relief. [Para 21]
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 rFkk 227 & ÁHkkoh vkuqdfYid mipkj & 'kCn ^^ÁHkkoh** fo'ks"k.k gS & laKk ^^ÁHkko** gS & ykfruh 'kCn ^^,fQdslh** ls O;qRiUu gS ftldk vFkZ gS ifj.kke Qfyr djus dh {kerk & ^^ÁHkkoh** ls rkRi;Z gS vk'kf;r ÁHkko ;k ifj.kke Qfyr djus esa l{keA , vkb vkj 1981 xkSgkVh 15 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 6½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226@227 ds v/khu fjV ;kfpdk xzg.k djus ds fy, vkuqdfYid mipkj ds fu;e ds lkr lqfo[;kr vioknksa dk] tks mPpre U;k;ky; ds iwoksZDr fu.kZ;ksa ls pqus tk ldrs gSa] lkj bl Ádkj ÁLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gS% ¼1½ tgk¡ fjV ;kfpdk ewy vf/kdkjksa ds ÁorZu ds fy, Qkby dh xbZ gks( ¼2½ tgk¡ uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar dk vfrØe.k gqvk gks( ¼3½ tgk¡ dk;Zokgh dk vkns'k iw.kZr% vf/kdkfjrkjfgr gks( ¼4½ tgk¡ fdlh vf/kfu;e dh 'kfDreÙkk ij vk{ksi fd;k x;k gks( ¼5½ tgk¡ vkuqdfYid mipkj dk ykHk ysus ls O;fDr dks vR;f/kd yach dk;Zokgh Hkksxuk iM+s vkSj vuko';d :i ls rax gksuk iMs+( ¼6½ tgk¡ rF;ksa ij dksbZ fookn ugha gksus ds dkj.k] mBk;k x;k Á'u 'kq)r% fof/kd Á'u gks ogk¡ vkuqdfYid mipkj ds ckotwn fjV ;kfpdk xzg.k dh tk ldrh gS rFkk ¼7½ tgk¡ lafonkRed ekeys esa jkT; ;k mlds e/;orhZ us yksd dY;k.k@fgr ds fo#) vU;k;iwoZd] v_tqrkiwoZd] v;qfDr;qDr% vkSj euekuh ls dk;Z fd;k gksA iwoksZfYyf[kr] fo'ks"kr% mi;qZDr ds ikaposa vkSj lkrosa] vioknksa ds ckotwn] fjV U;k;ky; dks fdlh fof'k"V ekeys esa ;kph ls vkuqdfYid mipkj dk ykHk ysus dh vis{kk djus ds ctk; Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226@227 ds v/khu ;kfpdk xzg.k djuk pkfg, ;k ugha] ;g lnk gh ml fuf'pr ekeys esa rF;kRed ifjfLFkfr ij] ;kph }kjk l'kDr ekeyk fl) fd, tkus ij fuHkZj djsxkA ;fn ;g n'kkZ;k tkrk gS fd ekeys ds rF; fookfnr ugha gSa rFkk ljdkj ;k mlds ifjdj.k }kjk vU;k;iwoZd] v_tqrkiwoZd vkSj v;qfDr;qDr% dk;Z fd;k x;k ik;k tkrk gS rks mldh lafonkRed ck/;rkvksa ds lacaèk esa Hkh] vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyC/krk ds ckotwn mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV ;kfpdk xzg.k dh tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxkA , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 1081] 1968 ts ,y ts 926 ¼,l lh½] ¼1988½ 1 ,l lh lh 401] ¼2011½ 2 ,l lh lh 439] ¼1998½ 8 ,l lh lh 1] , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 1506] , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 372] ¼2000½ 10 ,l lh lh 482] ¼2001½ 8 ,l lh lh 344] ¼2001½ 10 ,l lh lh 740] , vkb vkj 2005 ,l lh 3936] ¼2010½ 11 ,l lh lh 186 ¼2015½ 7 ,l lh lh 728 vuqlfjrA ¼1939½ 2 ds ch 838 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 6½
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 rFkk 227 & fjV ;kfpdk dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk & jkT; ds ifjdj.k }kjk viuh lafonkRed ;k dkuwuh ck/;rk esa v_tqrkiwoZd] vU;k;iwoZd] v;qfDr;qär% foHksndkjh
¼5½ lafonk & fuoZpu & i{kdkjksa ds e/; lafonk dk fuoZpu lafonk esa varfoZ"V 'kCnksa dks okLrfod vFkZ ns dj fd;k tkuk gksrk gS & ;fn i{kdkjksa us og Lo;a ugha cukbZ rks U;k;ky; }kjk ubZ lafonk cukbZ tkuk vuqKs; ugha] pkgs og fdruh gh ;qfDr;qDr D;ksa u gks & mldk fuoZpu bl Ádkj fd;k tkuk gksrk gS fd mlds fuca/kuksa esa ifjorZu ugha gks & fdlh ckg~; lgkjs ds fcuk fuoZpu fd;k tkuk gksrk gS & lafonk ds fuca/kuksa dk vFkkZUo;u vfrfu;efu"Brk ls] lafonk dh ÁÑfr mikarfjr fd, fcuk fd;k tkuk gksrk gS D;ksafd mlls nksuksa i{kksa esa ls fdlh dk Hkh fgr Áfrdwyr% ÁHkkfor gks ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 19 ,oa 21½
¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 rFkk 227 & eŒÁŒ ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 & /kkjk 17 & fjV ;kfpdk dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk & vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyC/krk & lafonk & rF; fookfnr ugha & U;k;ky; dk lek/kku djrs gq, LFkkfir fd ÁR;FkhZx.k us euekuh ls rFkk djkj ds lqlaxr vuqca/kksa vkSj lafonk ds MkVk ds foijhr dk;Z fd;k & vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyC/krk ls vkuqdfYid mipkj ds fn[kkoVh vfHkokd~ ds vk/kkj ij fjV ;kfpdk dk vxzg.k U;k;ksfpr ugha gks tkrk & bl ekeys ds rF;ksa esa] l{ke Ákf/kdkjh dks vkSj fQj vihy Ákf/kdkjh dks vkSj rRi'pkr~ ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k dks vkosnu ds ek/;e ls fookn lqy>kus dk vkuqdfYid mipkj ÁHkkoh vkuqdfYid mipkj ugha ekuk tk ldrk] fof'k"Vr% tc vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 esa vf/kdj.k }kjk varfje vuqrks"k ds Ánku dk otZu gSA ¼iSjk 21½
ORDER
Rafiq, CJ -- 1. This writ petition has been filed by Alok Kumar Choubey challenging validity of the order dated 22.12.2018 (Annexure-P/11), passed by the respondent No.5 Divisional Project Engineer, Public Works Department, Project Implementation Unit, Division Seoni, Seoni (M.P.), whereby the amount of performance guarantee (security) submitted by the petitioner for the work of construction of 100 Seater Chhatravas Building at Lakhnadon, District Seoni including water supply, sanitary fittings and electrification etc. was forfeited.
2. Mr. Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietorship Firm and is registered as a “C” class contractor with the respondent-Department. Being the successful bidder, the petitioner was awarded the work for construction of the aforesaid building and Letter of Acceptance (for short “LOA”) was issued in his favour on 2.6.2014. According to the terms of LOA, the petitioner was required to execute the entire work within 13 months excluding the rainy season. The cost of work was Rs.129.50 Lac. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondents. The time period for maintenance of the constructed work prescribed in the said agreement was two years from the date of completion of the work. Reference is made to Clause 18 of the agreement, Clause 18.1 whereof stipulates that the defect liability period of work in the contract shall be as per the contract data. It is contended that as per the stipulation contained in the contract data, the defect liability period in accordance with Clause 18.3 (GCC) read with its corresponding clause in contract data shall be of two years. The respondents have wrongly relied on Clause 29 of the agreement and the corresponding clause of the contract data and have treated the additional period of three months, beyond the period of two years, also as part of the defect liability period/maintenance guarantee period. Learned counsel argued that the period of two years would start from the date of completion of the work. In the present case, petitioner completed said work on 8.3.2016 and the respondent No.4 Divisional Project Engineer, PWD had issued a completion certificate in that behalf to the petitioner on 30.5.2016. No defect whatsoever was pointed out in the work executed by the petitioner during the aforesaid period of two years. As per the terms of the contract, the petitioner would be entitled to refund of theperformance guarantee furnished for the maintenance of the work. When the petitioner vide letter dated 3.5.2018 requested the respondent No.5 Divisional Project Engineer, PWD for refund of the amount deposited towards the security and performance guarantee, the respondents by communication dated 25.5.2018 (Annexure-R/2) required the petitioner to rectify the mistake in the work as per the inspection report dated 24.5.2018 submitted by the concerned Project Engineer. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have misinterpreted the stipulation given in the contract data in respect of Clause 29 of the agreement, which only provides that the performance guarantee (security) shall be valid up to three months beyond the completion of the defect liability period. That however does not have the effect of extending the defect liability period by additional three months over and above the period of two years.
3. Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State opposed the petition by contending that the writ petition should not be entertained as the petitioner has got efficacious alternative remedy in view of Clause 12 of the agreement, which provides for a dispute resolution system. The petitioner has to first approach the competent authority and, if the matter is not decided within 45 days, he can file appeal before the competent appellate authority w
The judgment established the importance of strict adherence to contract clauses and the interpretation of notice requirements for termination, as well as clarified the applicability of alternative re....
The court reaffirmed that contractual disputes with an arbitration clause are not maintainable under Article 226 unless exceptional circumstances arise, emphasizing lawful forfeiture of security for ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute fell within the ambit of the arbitration clause in the contract and that the public law remedy was not required as an effective pr....
Writ jurisdiction cannot be used solely for granting interim relief. Disputed factual matters are not within the purview of writ jurisdiction.
Writ petitions are maintainable for contractual claims against state entities, and withholding payments due to contractors on arbitrary grounds violates constitutional obligations to act fairly.
The existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement does not ipso facto render a writ petition not maintainable. The High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in exceptional circumstanc....
The court affirmed that disputes arising from contractual agreements lacking statutory characteristics are to be resolved through arbitration, and the invocation of performance guarantees is valid wh....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
