Writ interference with contractor recovery refused where disputed facts and statutory remedy under the VAT framework required factual examination.

Writ interference was declined against a proportional recovery order issued to a contractor under the contract clause read with Rule 44 and Section 77, as the dispute turned on factual questions about off-season conditions and the effect of premature curtailment of the contract period. The HC treated those matters as better examined by the statutory authorities under the Act, especially since a representation had already been made and could be pursued before the competent higher authority. The recovery order was therefore left undisturbed in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the recovery order passed against the contractor under clause 12 of the contract read with Rule 44 and Section 77 could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction, and whether the dispute should instead be examined by the statutory authorities on the facts placed before them.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged the proportional recovery of the contract amount after premature curtailment of the contract period. The Court noted that the respondents asserted authority to recover the difference amount under clause 12 of the contract, Rule 44 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Rules, 2006, and Section 77 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Court found that the petitioner's grievances regarding off-season conditions and the effect of the contract curtailment raised questions of fact. Such factual issues were better left to the authorities under the Act, particularly when a representation had already been made and could be pursued before the competent higher authority.

Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the recovery order in writ jurisdiction and left the petitioner to pursue the representation before the competent authority.

---