No Strict Rule That Money Claim Can't Be Decided Under Writ Jurisdiction; Non-Payment Of Admitted Dues Arbitrary : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (on January 08) reiterated that it is not a stringent rule that the High Court cannot decide a money claim under its writ jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that non-payment of admitted dues by the State authorities may be considered an arbitrary action and thus a writ petition may lie against the same. The Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan, inter-alia,...
The Supreme Court (on January 08) reiterated that it is not a stringent rule that the High Court cannot decide a money claim under its writ jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that non-payment of admitted dues by the State authorities may be considered an arbitrary action and thus a writ petition may lie against the same.
The Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan, inter-alia, placed reliance on the recent judgment of M/S Surya Constructions v. State of UP., and opined:
“Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie.”
The dispute pertained to the reimbursement of service tax and diesel escalation price. However, the Orissa High Court had disposed of the same, while relegating the writ petitioner (appellant) to avail alternative remedy.
“Since the petitioner claims for reimbursement of service tax and diesel escalation price, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue its remedy before the appropriate forum in terms of agreement itself.”
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that though the writ petition was filed in 2010, affidavits were exchanged and the matter was ripe for disposal, the above impugned order was passed.
The Apex Court pointed out that the High Court had not dealt with the merits of main matter. It also expressed its dismay that after ten years, the parties were asked to avail alternative remedy.
“Further, throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.”
“The High Court, in the impugned orders, has not set out any factual foundation of the kind which may suggest that there were disputed questions of fact that necessitated recording of evidence.”
Based on these counts, the Court while setting aside the impugned order, restored the present writ petition for fresh adjudication.
Case Name: M/S UTKAL HIGHWAYS ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS v. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 63
