Court rejects mandamus petition for payment of bills under contract with Irrigation Department, advises civil suit route

The court declined to entertain the petition seeking mandamus for payment of bills with interest under a contract with the Irrigation Department, emphasizing that contractual matters were not suitable for a writ petition under Article 226. The court highlighted the need for assessment by the competent authority on issues like work completion and adherence to agreed rates, suggesting that the contractor's remedy for non-payment lay in filing a civil suit or invoking arbitration. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner essentially sought a civil suit decree, which was inappropriate for the current proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Non-payment of bills under a contract with the Irrigation Department.

Analysis:
The petitioner had a contract with the Irrigation Department for the supply of materials but faced non-payment of bills. The petitioner sought a mandamus for payment with interest. The court noted that these were contractual matters and not suitable for a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court highlighted that issues like satisfactory completion of work, adherence to agreed rates, and proper execution needed assessment by the competent authority before any decision. The court stated that the contractor's remedy in case of non-payment would be to file a civil suit or invoke arbitration if there was an agreement.

The petitioner referred to a Division Bench order in a different case where an amount was sanctioned but not released, leading to a specific interim direction. However, the court emphasized that each case's circumstances were unique, and the present case did not warrant similar intervention. Despite acknowledging the absence of a complete bar on entertaining contractual matters, the court emphasized that various factual issues needed determination by the competent authority, making the exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction inappropriate. The court concluded that the petitioner essentially sought a civil suit decree, which was not suitable for the current proceedings due to the complexity of the issues involved.

In the final disposition, the court declined to entertain the petition, emphasizing that the nature of the issues required determination by the competent authority rather than through a writ petition. The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

---