Writ Court Cannot Adjudicate Factual Disputes Arising Out Of Pure Contractual Matters Having No Statutory Flavour: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that writ court cannot adjudicate factual disputes arising out of pure contractual matters in the field of private law having no statutory flavour.In this case, the bid of the writ petitioner was accepted for construction and improvement of road between Lumla and Tashigong under Special Accelerated Rural Development Programme (SARDP). The bills submitted by...
The Supreme Court observed that writ court cannot adjudicate factual disputes arising out of pure contractual matters in the field of private law having no statutory flavour.
In this case, the bid of the writ petitioner was accepted for construction and improvement of road between Lumla and Tashigong under Special Accelerated Rural Development Programme (SARDP). The bills submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the authorities. He approached the High Court of Gauhati by filing a writ petition. The High Court allowing the writ petition directed the authority to approve the Detailed Project Report and pay the pending bills on the basis of Final Joint Survey/Measurement Report.
In appeal, one of the contentions raised was that there are serious disputes about the facts in respect of authenticity of the Joint Final Report and the work done. Such disputed question of facts could not have been adjudicated by the Writ Court as disputed question of facts relating to recovery of money could not have been entertained, the centre contended.
Agreeing with the said contention, the bench noted that, in this case, the dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts.
"Therefore, the dispute could not be raised by way of a writ petition on the disputed questions of fact. Though, the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in respect of pure contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts. There is no admission on the part of the appellants to infer that the amount stands crystallized.", the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna said while allowing the appeal
Case: Union of India vs. M/s Puna Hinda ; CA 4981 OF 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 443
Coram: Justices Hemant Gupta and AS BopannaCounsel: ASG KM Natraj for Union of India, Sr.Adv Meenakshi Arora for respondent
Click here to read/download the judgment