TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the years 1998 to 2000, the Directorate of Education of the appellants had placed an order on the respondents for erection of tin shed structures in some of the government schools in Delhi; similar orders were placed on other tent houses also including one Punjabi Tent House; that during the year 1999-2000 bills for Rs. 4,30,943/-, Rs. 57,89,526/- and Rs. 5,30,603/- i.e. for a total sum of Rs. 67,57,072/- were raised by the respondents; that inspite of repeated requests and reminders of the respondents and promises to pay, the bills were not cleared and the payments withheld ―due to some audit objections...... during the special audit conducted in the year 2000‖ ; that the appellants have however never denied their liability to the respondents; that the respondents on 6th May, 2004 had made a complaint to the Public Grievances Commission also; that though payments had been denied to the respondents but the appellant in pursuance to W.P.(C) No.5900/2003 filed by said M/s. Punjabi Tent House had paid the withheld amount; that the respondents were similarly placed as M/s. Punjabi Tent House (supra). Mandamus was thus sought for directing the appellant to release the paym....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 14th September, 2000; that it was for the Department of Education to see whether any lapse existed in the quality of the work done. 6. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 29th January, 2010 requisitioned the audit report and found that there were two specific objections in relation to the respondents; firstly that the work was awarded to the respondents without approval of Competent Authority and secondly that there were complaints regarding poor quality of work and which the Director of Audit had asked the Directorate of Education to consider. 7. The learned Single Judge in the order impugned before us found that the Directorate of Education without conducting any inquiry into the complaints was not justified in withholding payments; that there was nothing to show that any such inquiry regarding the quality of work had been conducted. 8. The learned Single Judge further held that non-obtaining prior approval from the Competent Authority could not erase the entire work done by the respondents and the respondents could not be denied payment for omission on the part of appellants to take such approval. 9. Qua the plea of the appellants herein of the claim being b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... House. However Punjabi Tent House had filed their petition in the year 2003 and the same was allowed on 05.08.2004. The respondents waited for more than three years thereafter also, for filing their petition. Even if it is to be held that the claim of M/s Punjabi Tent House was also barred by limitation, wrong decision and more so on the point of law, as the plea of limitation in the present case is, cannot constitute a precedent for allowing other time barred claims. 13. The counsel for the appellants has cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006 to contend that though the provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to the granting of relief under Article 226 however the maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. Reliance is also placed on Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan AIR 2005 SC 3202 in support of the proposition that contractual obligations are beyond the zone of judicial review. 14. We may however notice that the judgment (supra) in Bhailal Bhai has been overrul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ractual matters are not totally beyond the scope of judicial review; f. A. Angoubi Singh v. State of Manipur AIR 2005 Gauhati 92 - where direction for discharging contractual obligations was issued in writ jurisdiction; g. ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. 2003 (10) SCALE 815 - on the disputed questions of fact capable of being gone into in writ jurisdiction; h. Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 12 SCC 91 also found to be not applicable; i. Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107 - also on the rule of alternative remedy being a rule of discretion; j. Smt. Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda (1969) 3 SCC 769 laying down that the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 has jurisdiction to determine questions of fact even if they are in dispute. We are afraid none of the aforesaid judgments come to the rescue of the respondents on the aspect o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble, if the allegation is that the assessment was without a jurisdiction and the tax collected was without authority of law and therefore the respondents had no authority to retain the money collected without any authority of law, the High Court has the power to direct refund in a writ petition; (v) It is one thing to say that the High Court has no power under Article 226 to issue a writ of mandamus for making refund of the money illegally collected. It is yet another thing to say that such power can be exercised sparingly depending on facts and circumstances of each case. For instance, where the facts are not in dispute, where the collection of money was without authority of law, there is no good reason to deny a relief of refund to the citizens; (vi) Where the lis has a public law character or involves a question arising out of public law functions on the part of the State or its authorities, access to justice by way of a public law remedy will not be denied. 19. In our view the present case does not fall in any of the categories enumerated above. As far as reliance on ABL I....