Writ jurisdiction cannot enforce disputed contractual dues where liability and performance require detailed fact-finding.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was found unsuitable for enforcing disputed contractual monetary claims where liability, settlement, the extent of supplies, and the parties' performance remained contested on facts. The court held that such issues required evidence and detailed fact-finding, and no public law element was shown to justify a writ direction to withhold or divert retention amounts. The petition was therefore not maintainable in writ proceedings, and the claimant was left to pursue the appropriate remedy in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking payment of alleged contractual dues and a direction to withhold and divert retention amounts was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the face of serious disputed questions of fact and absence of a public law element.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a purchase order and related supplies, invoices, accounts, alleged settlement, and the nature and extent of performance, all of which were seriously contested by the parties. The issues as to whether materials were supplied beyond a particular invoice, whether the alleged settlement bound the parties, whether the petitioner was a subcontractor or only a supplier, and whether the contractual obligations were fully discharged required examination of evidence and detailed fact-finding. The relief sought was essentially recovery of money arising from contractual obligations, and the requested direction against the official respondents to withhold and divert retention amounts could not be granted in writ jurisdiction in the absence of an admitted liability or any public law element.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226 for adjudication of these contractual and factual disputes, and the petitioner was relegated to the appropriate remedy in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition ordinarily cannot be entertained for enforcement of disputed contractual monetary claims requiring detailed fact-finding, especially where no public law element is shown.

---