Summary
The Court set aside a direction to pay a road contractor on the basis of a disputed joint survey report. The competent authority had not accepted that report, and the passage of five monsoons did not turn contested measurements into an admitted debt. Contemporaneous measurement books could support determination of liability through the agreed arbitration process. In this purely contractual dispute involving technical factual questions and no statutory flavour, writ relief was inappropriate. The Union’s appeal was allowed and the contractor’s writ petition dismissed.
Issues
- Whether a writ court should direct payment of a disputed contractual claim based on an unaccepted joint survey report.
- Whether the inability to conduct a fresh survey established the contractor’s entitlement to the amount claimed.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaAlthough contractual disputes and monetary claims do not create an absolute jurisdictional bar, this technical private-law dispute was appropriately left to the agreed arbitral forum. (¶¶ 17, 18, 23, 24)
Held
- Writ jurisdiction in contractual matters is discretionary. Complex disputed facts, the absence of a public-law element and an agreed arbitration mechanism ordinarily favour adjudication through the contractual forum rather than determination of the money claim in writ proceedings. (¶¶ 17, 18, 24)
- The joint survey report did not constitute an admitted measurement merely because some officers had signed it. Its rejection by the competent authority and the disputed scope and quantities of work prevented treating the contractor’s claim as crystallised liability. (¶¶ 20, 21, 23, 24)
- The difficulty of conducting a fresh survey after several monsoons did not establish a right to payment under the disputed report. Contemporaneous measurement books could provide a reasonable evidentiary basis for the agreed arbitral forum to determine whether, and how much, remained payable. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- The appeal was allowed and the contractor’s writ petition dismissed. The Court did not adjudicate the final contractual amount payable. (¶¶ 24, 26)
Result
Union’s appeal allowed; High Court’s payment direction set aside and contractor’s writ petition dismissed.