2024 (5) TMI 882 - HC - Indian Laws

Writ petitions for contractual payment claims dismissed due to lack of exceptional circumstances and unexplained delay

The Ghani Khan Choudhury Institute of Engineering and Technology & Ors. Versus M/s. Malda Construction Company & Ors. ; Malda Construction Company & ors. ; Gouri Construction & Ors. ; Subham Enterprise & Ors.

The Ghani Khan Choudhury Institute of Engineering and Technology & Ors. Versus M/s. Malda Construction Company & Ors. ; Malda Construction Company & ors. ... Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the writ petitions.2. Alleged arbitrary and unreasonable conduct by the Institute.3. Time-barred claims and delay in filing the writ petition.4. Jurisdiction of the writ court in contractual matters.Summary:1. Maintainability of the Writ Petitions:The primary issue was whether the writ petitions were maintainable given that the dispute arose from a non-statutory contract. The court noted that the Institute, being a Central Government funded technical institute, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the rights of the parties were governed by the terms of the contract, and the court emphasized that normally, disputes arising from contractual obligations should be resolved through established civil adjudicatory processes unless exceptional circumstances justify the intervention of the writ court.2. Alleged Arbitrary and Unreasonable Conduct by the Institute:The learned Single Judge had observed that the Institute's non-payment of the petitioners' bills, despite the completion of work to the Institute's satisfaction, amounted to arbitrary and unreasonable conduct. The Single Judge directed the Institute to release the amounts indicated in the impugned order along with interest. However, the appellate court found that there was a serious and genuine dispute regarding the liability to make payment, as evidenced by the objections noted by the Assistant Engineer and the return of the original file by NIT, Durgapur.3. Time-Barred Claims and Delay in Filing the Writ Petition:The court highlighted that the final bill was submitted on February 23, 2015, and the writ petition was filed only in December 2022. The court held that the period prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing a suit should be considered the reasonable time period for filing a writ petition involving money claims. The court found that the writ petitioners failed to explain the inordinate delay and that a civil suit for such reliefs would likely have been time-barred at the time of filing the writ petition.4. Jurisdiction of the Writ Court in Contractual Matters:The court reiterated that while the writ jurisdiction is a public law remedy, it can be invoked in contractual matters if the action of the entity amenable to writ jurisdiction is per se arbitrary. However, in this case, the court found that the writ petitioners failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing the established civil adjudicatory process. The court concluded that the writ petitions were not maintainable and that the learned Single Judge had improperly exercised discretion by granting relief.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment and order were set aside. The writ petitioners were advised to approach the proper forum for appropriate reliefs in accordance with the law. The court clarified that its observations were only to support the ultimate conclusions in these appeals and should not prejudice the parties if they approach the proper forum.