Full Judgment Text
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment pronounced on : 17.04.2025
W.P.(C) 2658/2025 & CM APPL. 12602/2025
+
M/S CS CYBERSOFT INFOTECH PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Usha Nandini V., Advocate along
with Mr. Biju P. Raman and Mr. John
G. A., Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC along with
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Mr. Dev Pratap
Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh and
Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Nishe Rajan Shankar and Mr.
Santhosh K and Mr. Alim Anvar,
Advocates for R-6 to R-8.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction
for the respondents to comply with the terms and conditions of the work
order dated 18.02.2020 and communication dated 20.03.2020 and to release
the pending payment of ₹5,66,52,890 for work completed under the 7th
National Economic Census in the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The
petitioner also seeks transparency regarding TDS deductions and the
calculation of pending remuneration.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2658/2025 Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:03:20
2. The background of the case is that the 7th National Economic Census
was initiated by the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation
(MoSPI)/respondent no. 2 to collect data on economic activity across the
country. The implementation of the project was entrusted to CSC e-
Governance Services India Limited/ respondent nos. 3 and 4. CSC e-
Governance Services India Limited was responsible for executing the survey
through vendors and service providers.
3. The petitioner, an entity engaged in conducting research, surveys, data
collection, and IT services, submitted a proposal to undertake primary
survey work for the 7th National Economic Census in Kerala and Tamil
Nadu. Accepting this proposal, CSC e-Governance Services India Limited
issued a work order dated 18.02.2020 and a communication dated
20.03.2020 , authorizing the petitioner to conduct the survey in these states
using a team of enumerators and supervisors.
4. Pursuant to the issuance of work order, the petitioner appointed 8,000
enumerators and 2,000 supervisors to carry out the door-to-door economic
census survey. The petitioner successfully completed the survey and
submitted all collected data to CSC e-Governance Services India Limited by
08.04.2021.
5. It is submitted that CSC e-Governance Services India Limited has
only paid 60% of the agreed amount, leaving 40% ( ₹5,66,52,890) unpaid.
Despite submitting invoices as per the terms of the work orders, CSC e-
Governance Services India Limited has failed to release the full payment
Limited even though TDS amount was deducted on the amount claimed
through each invoices submitted by the petitioner.
6. In an effort to seek redress, the petitioner escalated the issue to higher
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2658/2025 Page 2 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:03:20
authorities, however, to no avail.
7. The petitioner, therefore, sent another email on 06.12.2022 to CSC e-
Governance Services India Limited and the Deputy Director General,
MoSPI, seeking immediate release of the dues.
8. Further, on 26.12.2022, the petitioner sent another email requesting
urgent payment release. On 27.12.2022, this email was forwarded to higher
officials by the Deputy Director General, MoSPI, acknowledging the issue.
9. While the issue of pending payments remained unresolved, in March
2023, CSC e-Governance Services India Limited requested the petitioner to
conduct a resurvey of certain areas previously surveyed by other vendors
due to discrepancies in data quality. It was also informed that for the
resurvey work, petitioner would be paid as per the terms and conditions of
the work order. The petitioner deployed 1,600 enumerators and successfully
completed the resurvey by May 2023.
10. On 07.05.2023, the petitioner formally notified CSC e-Governance
Services India Limited of the completion of the resurvey work
, providing a
detailed report.
11. Further, to
ensure accuracy in data verification, the petitioner engaged
400 additional staff and submitted the final verified data on 09.10.2023
via
email.
12. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite completing the survey
and submitting all verified data, CSC e-Governance Services India Limited
did not release the requisite payments. When the petitioner
inquired about
the delay, CSC e-Governance Services India Limited responded that
payments would be processed only upon obtaining a No Objection
Certificate (NOC) from the Statistics Department
.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2658/2025 Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:03:20
13. It is submitted by the petitioner that MoSPI has already released
₹667.28 crores to CSC e -Governance Services India Limited for executing
various activities related to the 7th National Economic Census. Despite
receiving these funds, CSC e-Governance Services India Limited continues
to withhold payments due to vendors, including the petitioner.
14. The petitioner also sought clarification on the details of TDS
deductions, but CSC e-Governance Services India Limited has failed to
provide any transparency on how the deductions have been accounted for.
15. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court
by way of the present petition.
16. Upon consideration of the petitioner’s grievances and the reliefs
sought, it is evident that the petitioner seeks recovery of an outstanding
contractual amount from respondent no. 3/ respondent no.4. The nature of
the claim necessitates a detailed factual inquiry into the quantum of work
completed, the petitioner’s financial entitlements, and alleged breaches or
deficiencies, if any, in the execution of the contract. Such an intricate
evaluation falls within the domain of civil proceedings and cannot be
effectively adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
17. It is a settled legal position that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for the enforcement of purely
contractual rights, especially where monetary claims are in dispute, and an
efficacious alternative remedy in civil law is available.
18. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in ROSHINA T. v. Abdul
Azeez K.T. & Ors ., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2654 has observed that Article
226 can’t be used for deciding disputes for which civil remedies are
available. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under –
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2658/2025 Page 4 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:03:20
“13. These questions, in our view, were pure questions of fact and could
be answered one way or the other only by the civil court in a properly
constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the
parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution by the High Court.
14. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the
appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property
rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of
the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some
statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such
cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the
authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its
constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which
remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This
Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies
by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person.
The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and
extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere
asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria
and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal.)
15. In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore,
legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the
ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by
Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) in the civil court.
16. We cannot, therefore, concur with the reasoning and the conclusion
arrived at by the High Court when it unnecessarily went into all the
questions of fact arising in the case on the basis of factual pleadings in
detail (43 pages) and recorded a factual finding that it was Respondent
1 (writ petitioner) who was in possession of the flat and, therefore, he
be restored with his possession of the flat by the appellant.
17. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, while so directing
exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of
the Constitution. Indeed, the High Court in granting such relief, had
virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit and itself to a civil
court. In our view, it was not permissible.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. The Supreme Court in Director of Agriculture & Ors. v. M.V.
Ramachandran , Special Leave Petition (C) No.18371/2021, has observed as
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2658/2025 Page 5 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:03:20
under –
“We fail to appreciate how the writ petition before the learned Single
Judge could have been entertained for recovery of money alleged to
have been due and payable under the bills/invoices. The learned Single
Judge, as such, ought not to have been entertained the writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for recovery of money
under the bills/invoices, more particularly, when in fact the original
writ petitioner(s) availed the remedy before Civil Court and filed Civil
Suit, which came to be dismissed in default.
The aforesaid aspect has not been considered even by the Division
Bench of the High Court.
In view of the above and on the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned
judgment and orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
and that of the learned Single Judge entertaining the writ petition are
hereby quashed and set aside. However, it will be open for the original
writ petitioner(s) to pursue the remedy before the Civil Court by getting
the suit restored and if such an application is filed within a period of six
weeks from today, the concerned Trial Court to restore the suit and
thereafter to decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with law and
on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence led.”
20. Furthermore, the petitioner’s claim that funds have been released by
the MoSPI to the respondent no. 3/ respondent no. 4 is of no consequence.
The petitioner’s contractual privity is strictly with the respondent no. 3/
respondent no. 4, and not with the MoSPI. Any obligations to release
payments arise solely under the petitioner’s agreement with the respondent
no.3/ respondent no.4.
21. In light of the foregoing, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
present writ petition; the same is, accordingly, dismissed, while granting
liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal through appropriate civil
proceedings.
22. All rights and contentions of the petitioner as regards the merits of its
case for recovery of amount/s from the respondent no. 3/ respondent no. 4,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2658/2025 Page 6 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:03:20
are expressly reserved.
APRIL 17, 2025/ sv SACHIN DATTA, J
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2658/2025 Page 7 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:03:20