Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Over Payment Disputes in Emergency Supply Contracts

Background

In a significant ruling, the Meghalaya High Court addressed two writ petitions filed by Priyanchi Marak and Cerine N. Marak , who claimed that their fundamental rights were violated due to the government's failure to pay for the supply of cattle, poultry, and pig feed following a natural disaster in North Garo Hills in 2014. The petitioners argued that despite fulfilling their contractual obligations, they had not received payments amounting to ₹2.2 crores and ₹6.47 crores, respectively.

Arguments

The petitioners contended that they were selected to supply animal feed in response to a flash flood that devastated the region. They provided evidence of their compliance with the supply orders and claimed that the government had assured them that payments would be made once funds were available. Conversely, the respondents, represented by the Advocate General, argued that the petitions were not maintainable due to the delay in filing and the existence of disputed facts regarding the supply orders and adherence to procurement norms.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The court analyzed the arguments presented by both sides, noting that the petitioners had indeed supplied the feed as ordered but faced delays in payment due to procedural objections raised by the government. The court emphasized that the issues at hand involved disputed questions of fact, particularly regarding the timing of the supply orders and whether the feed was delivered to designated relief camps. The court referenced previous rulings that established that disputes of this nature should be resolved in civil courts rather than through writ petitions.

Decision

Ultimately, the Meghalaya High Court dismissed both writ petitions, stating that the matters were not maintainable in a constitutional court due to the presence of disputed facts and the contractual nature of the claims. The court advised the petitioners to seek redress through civil litigation, reinforcing the principle that monetary claims arising from contractual obligations are best adjudicated in the appropriate legal forum.