Court dismisses writ petition seeking money recovery from statutory body, emphasizes common law principles over Article 226

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking recovery of money from U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, emphasizing that contractual disputes with statutory bodies should be resolved through common law principles or arbitration, not Article 226. The court held that seeking a money decree through a writ petition was not permissible under extraordinary equitable jurisdiction, citing precedents. As the prayer for recovery was akin to seeking a money decree through Article 226, the court found no basis for intervention and dismissed the petition, vacating any interim orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Prayer (i) rendered infructuous by efflux of time.
2. Recovery of money from U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited based on contractual matter.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner acknowledged that Prayer (i) had become irrelevant due to the passage of time. The counsel for the petitioner did not contest this fact.

2. Regarding Prayer (ii), the issue of recovering money from U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited was discussed. The counsel for the petitioner admitted that this matter pertained to a contractual dispute, emphasizing that seeking relief under Article 226 for breach of contract was not appropriate. Citing the case of Kerala State Electricity Board and another Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and others, it was highlighted that disputes arising from contractual terms should be resolved through common law principles or arbitration, rather than through a writ petition under Article 226. The court emphasized that contracts with statutory bodies do not automatically become statutory contracts, and disputes related to such contracts fall under the purview of private law. The court referred to previous judgments to support the stance that seeking a money decree through a writ petition was not permissible under extraordinary equitable jurisdiction. Therefore, the court concluded that the mandamus sought by the petitioner for recovery of money was akin to seeking a money decree through Article 226, which was not warranted. Consequently, the court found no grounds to intervene and dismissed the writ petition, vacating any interim orders previously issued.

---