Supreme Court: No Strict Rule That Money Claim Can't Be Decided Under Writ Jurisdiction; Non-Payment Of Admitted Dues Arbitrary

  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.

Dated: JANUARY 08, 2025.

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.