Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Urmila Raj Enterprises Through Its ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy ... on 1 August, 2023
Author: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
Bench: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1286 of 2023
----
M/s. Urmila Raj Enterprises through its Proprietor Dilip Kumar son
of Sri Thakur Prasad Sao, resident of Chandouri, PS Tisri, District
Giridih.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.
2. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department,
Giridih.
3. The Executive Engineer, N.R.E.P., Giridih.
4. The Child Development Project Officer, Tisri, District Giridih.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Shankar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sreenu Garapati, SC III
----
04/ 01.08.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
passed the following, (Per Ananda Sen, J.)
ORDER
1. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for payment of contractual dues, which, according to the petitioner, is admitted and has been withheld by the respondents without any rhyme or reason.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed the work of construction of Anganbari Centres in different blocks of Giridih, but the respondents, inspite of completion of work, have not paid the dues, which the petitioner is entitled to receive, on the ground that one Anganbari Centre has not been constructed, but the respondents have failed to take into consideration that the land was not provided, therefore, the Anganbari Centre at Khijuri was not completely constructed. The other three Anganbari Centres were completely constructed and were taken in possession by the Child Development Project Officer, Tisri, Giridih, but inspite of that, payment has not been made. In that view, since the dues arises from a contract and the respondents are duty bound to pay the same, a prayer has been made before this Court to direct the respondents to pay the amount.
3. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, they have submitted that the petitioner, in fact, has not completed the construction of said Anganbari Centres and he remained silent for 5 (five) years without demanding the dues. On demand of money by the petitioner, the Executive Engineer, N.R.E.P., Giridih directed the Assistant Engineer, Tisri -: 2 :- and Junior Engineer to inquire into the matter. They submitted a report on 28.02.2023, stating that there are several spots of seepage in the roof of the building, plaster work has not been completed, floor found damaged, no supply water has been provided in the kitchen and toilet and the same not in condition to use and no electric fitting has been done in Kanichihar, Kodaribank and Khijuri Western Part Anganbari Centres. They alleged that the petitioner knew the aforesaid fact, so he did not try to hand over the possession of the building of aforesaid three Anganbari Centres and never claimed his dues even after 5 (five) years. The respondents have also taken a plea that as per the Measurement Book, estimated cost / agreement value of 4 (four) Anganbari Centres is Rs.24,73,600/- and the work of 3 (three) Centres was incomplete and it was found that the work done is to the tune of Rs.13,08,102/- which has already been paid to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respondents, relying upon the report, objected the writ petition.
4. From the arguments of the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner, in this writ petition has made a money claim. As per the petitioner, dues are admitted. No doubt in contractual matters, writ petition can be entertained, but there should not be any disputed question of fact. The facts, which are complicated and needs to be adjudicated by leading oral and documentary evidence, should be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction after properly adjudicating the rival claim of the parties and only in extraordinary cases, the writ petition in respect of money claim should be entertained, that too when there is no disputed question of fact.
5. This Court in the case of Nitesh Kumar Singh versus The State of Jharkhand & Others [W.P.(C) No. 4665 of 2018], relying on several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under: -
"21. Thus what falls from all these judgments, which has been referred above, is that in a contractual matter, if there is a disputed question of fact and the facts which have been pleaded need to be proved by evidence, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should relegate the parties before a Civil Court. Further, when a party claims any relief, which they are claiming to be admitted by the other side, then the Court has to see that the admission is conscious, unambiguous and categorical and the person is showing intention that he is bound by it."
6. While we go through this writ petition, we find that the petitioner has made a money claim, which has been opposed by the respondents by filing their counter affidavit. Nowhere the respondents have admitted the claim -: 3 :- of the petitioner, rather they opposed the same on the ground that the petitioner has not completed the work and after 5 (five) years, he has approached the High Court. Thus, not only the dues are not admitted, the fact that the work has been completed or not is also disputed. This dispute can only be resolved by leading evidence before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Further, from the tenor of the opposition, which has been put forth by the respondents in the counter affidavit, it is clear that they are taking a plea that the claim is also barred by limitation. This question of limitation is also a mixed question of law and facts, which needs leading of evidence.
7. Considering what has been held above, we hold that there are serious disputed question of facts, which cannot be decided in this extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if so advised, petitioner may approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition.
8. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copies of this order shall be issued as per the Rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02