2014 (4) TMI 1208 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses petition for payment under NRHM work orders, directs civil suits for contractual disputes

The court dismissed the petition seeking payment for work done under National Rural Health Mission work orders, directing the petitioners to pursue ... Recovery of alleged dues - it is alleged that cheques were issued but were not honoured as payment was stopped by the drawers - Held that: - it would not be appropriate, in our view, to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass an order, that would essentially be a money decree. At the least, the defence would raise issues on which evidence would have to be adduced before a civil court. Quite independently of that, in a matter of this nature, remedies are available either in the form of a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or in the form a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1888 - we decline to entertain this petition and relegate the petitioner to the remedy available in law - petition dismissed. Issues:Claim of non-payment under National Rural Health Mission work orders.Analysis:The petitioners claimed non-payment for work executed under National Rural Health Mission work orders between January 2013 to February 2014. The petitioners alleged that payments were stopped after cheques were issued but not honored due to a stop payment order. They sought a direction to clear the cheques totaling Rs. 13,35,983 and payment of interest at 12% per annum. The respondents cited irregularities in fund disbursement, leading to an inquiry and stoppage of payments. An FIR was lodged against the petitioners, alleging coercion in obtaining cheques. The defense argued against entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, suggesting remedies through civil suits or complaints under the Negotiable Instrument Act. Citing a previous judgment, the court declined to entertain similar petitions involving contractual matters. The court emphasized that issues like satisfactory completion of work and payment disputes should be addressed by competent authorities or through civil suits, not under Article 226 jurisdiction. Following this precedent, the court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to seek remedies available in law.