Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to recover purely monetary transport dues where no statutory obligation is shown.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable for enforcing a purely monetary claim arising from work orders and submitted bills for transport services, because the relief sought was in substance recovery of dues with interest and not enforcement of any statutory obligation. The contract was not shown to be a statutory contract attracting any exception to the usual rule against writ relief in money claims. The proper remedy was pursuit of an ordinary civil action, and writ relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for enforcement of a purely monetary claim arising out of work orders and bills submitted for transport services, and whether such relief can be granted in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The reliefs sought were for payment of alleged dues under submitted bills together with interest. Such a claim was in the nature of a money decree and did not involve enforcement of a statutory obligation. The contract was not shown to be a statutory contract attracting any limited exception permitting writ relief. In such circumstances, the proper course was to pursue the ordinary civil remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for recovery of the claimed money, and the relief was declined.

---