Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Darpan Construction Company & Anr vs The Union Of India & Ors on 10 June, 2019
1
10.06.2019
Item no. 33
Aloke/ D.D MAT 1833 of 2017
+
CAN 10330 of 2017
+
CAN 10343 of 2017
M/s. Darpan Construction Company & Anr.
Vs.
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Sattwik Bhattacharyya
Mr. Subhasish Misra
... ... For the appellants
Mr. Rahul Sarkar
Mr. Saikat Das
... ...For the UOI
CAN 10330 of 2017 is an application for condonation of delay in
preferring the appeal. We find that the Causes shown for condonation of
such delay are sufficient. CAN 10330 of 2017 is allowed.
This appeal arises from a writ petition filed by a contractor seeking
that he is entitled to release of payment in connection with a civil
contract.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the Government.
We see that the learned Single Judge has noticed on the basis of the
materials on record that there is vigilance action pending in respect of the
contract though the learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is
an irrelevant factor since those proceedings had culminated in favour of
the appellant. The learned Single Judge had recorded that the records do
not demonstrate that the respondents have admitted the claims of the
petitioners. The learned Single Judge noticed the disputed and complex questions of fact which ought not to have been entered into through this writ petition.
The scope of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the questions that could be raised in such a proceeding in relation to a contract even where the case is where one of the contracting parties fall within the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution needs not much of elaboration having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Joshi Technologies vs. Union of India & Ors. in Civil 2 Appeal no. 6929 of 2012 dated 14.05.2015. Their Lordships had noted that there is no indefeasible rule that the writ jurisdiction shall not be exercised in respect of a contractual dispute. However, it is a sound principle of judicial wisdom to ensure that there is no adjudication of questions of facts which may require examination of evidence and rendering of decision on disputed questions of facts. Keeping in mind the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in the said case, we do not find that the learned Single Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction in not having entertained the writ petition for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution. We, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional infirmity, illegality or procedural irregularity committed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by us through this letters patent appeal. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The connected application being CAN 10343 of 2017 is also dismissed.
We clarify that if there is any arbitration award or pending decision by any competent authority, the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge or this judgment will not stand in the way of implementation of such enforceable awards and orders.
[Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J] [Arijit Banerjee, J]