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.1 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 evidence2. {Para 8}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No._________________ of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.14350/2022)
M/S UTKAL HIGHWAYS ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS Vs CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER & ORS.
Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The order under challenge dated 15.03.2022 is passed by the
High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P.(C) No.8037 of 2011 whereby
the writ petition filed by the appellant has been disposed of by
relegating the writ petitioner (i.e., the appellant herein) to
avail alternative remedy.
4. In the connected matter, the order under challenge is dated
05.01.2022 passed by the same High Court whereby W.P.(C) No.16899
of 2010 filed by the appellant has been disposed of by relegating
the writ petitioner (i.e., the appellant herein) to pursue its
remedy before the authority.
5. The short submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
in both the appeals is that the writ petitions were filed in the
year 2010, parties had exchanged their affidavits, and the matters
were ripe for final disposal. In these circumstances, without even
adverting to the facts borne out from the affidavits exchanged by
the parties, there was no justification for the High Court to
relegate the appellant to avail other remedies.
6. In the light of the aforesaid submission, we put a specific
question to Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned senior counsel representing
respondent, as to whether parties had exchanged their affidavits in
the course of the writ proceedings.
7. Mr. K.M. Nataraj fairly stated that the parties had exchanged
their affidavits. However, respondents had taken a plea that writ
petitions related to a money claim, which had become barred by
time, therefore, writ petition was not maintainable.
8. Be that as it may, the High Court has not dealt with the
merits of the writ petition. 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.1 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 evidence2.
9. 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.
10. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the writ
petition must be restored for fresh adjudication by the High Court.
Consequently, we set aside the order of the High Court and restore
1 1 Surya Constructions v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2019) 16 SCC 794; See also:
Unitech Ltd. and others v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Others,
(2021) 16 SCC 35; Joshi Technologies International Inc v. Union of India and Others, (2015) 7 SCC
728
2 2 Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal v. State of UP and others, (1995) 1 SCC 614 (para 10); Durga
Enterprises (P) Ltd. and another v. Principal Secretary, Govt. of U.P. & others, (2004) 13 SCC 665.
2
the Writ Petition to its original number(s) for fresh adjudication
in accordance with law.
11. The Civil Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Civil Appeal No._________________ of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.15596/2022)
Leave granted.
2. This Civil Appeal is also disposed of with the same
observations and directions in terms of the order passed in Civil
Appeal No._______ of 2025 @Special Leave Petition (C)
No.14350/2022.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
........................,J.
[MANOJ MISRA]
........................,J.
[MANMOHAN]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 08, 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment