Article 226 writ jurisdiction ordinarily cannot enforce pure contractual money claims absent a public law element.

The petitioner, M/s Tara Enterprises, claimed to have undertaken construction of a new 33/11 KV sub-station at Maudah Chatur, Patepur, Vaishali, under the DDUGJY Scheme.

Respondent No. 3, Larsen & Toubro Ltd., was the principal contractor engaged by North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. (“NBPDCL”) pursuant to Letters of Award dated 17 January 2017. The petitioner asserted that respondent No. 3 issued a letter of intent in its favour on 4 June 2018 and that it completed the construction work in November 2018.

The petitioner claimed payment of ₹24,16,050, alleging that although NBPDCL had released the amount to respondent No. 3, respondent No. 3 had failed to pay the petitioner and had obtained payment on the basis of a forged No-Objection Certificate.

The writ petition under Article 226 sought recovery of the said amount with penal interest from the respondents.

NBPDCL objected to maintainability on the ground that there was no privity of contract between it and the petitioner, who was merely a sub-contractor of respondent No. 3. It was further contended that the petitioner had no enforceable statutory or legal right against NBPDCL.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for recovery of a money claim arising from a contractual obligation, particularly where disputed questions of fact are involved?

Whether the petitioner, being a sub-contractor without privity of contract with NBPDCL, could seek payment directly from NBPDCL through writ jurisdiction?

Whether a writ could be issued against respondent No. 3, a private principal contractor, in the absence of any public duty or public-law element?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution and the principle that, although a writ petition is not absolutely barred in contractual matters, the High Court ordinarily declines to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction where the dispute is purely contractual, involves serious disputed questions of fact, or seeks a money decree.

Relying on Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728, the Court held that writ jurisdiction is normally inappropriate where the contract has no public-law character, where the contract provides an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism, where complex factual disputes require oral evidence, or where the claim is a monetary claim arising from contractual obligations.

Under Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dolly Das, (1999) 4 SCC 450, enforcement of a contractual money claim generally requires an underlying constitutional or statutory right.

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalthil, (2000) 6 SCC 293 establishes that disputes concerning interpretation or implementation of contractual terms should ordinarily be resolved under ordinary contract law and not through Article 226.

The Court further relied on S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177, for the principle that a private body is amenable to writ jurisdiction only where a public duty or public-law element is involved.

The Court found that the petitioner’s claim was fundamentally for recovery of ₹24,16,050 allegedly due under a subcontract, and therefore arose within the realm of private contractual law.

The petitioner had no direct contract with NBPDCL; NBPDCL’s contractual relationship was with respondent No. 3, the principal contractor. Consequently, the petitioner could not enforce contractual obligations against NBPDCL in the absence of privity of contract or an independent statutory right.

The allegation concerning the forged No-Objection Certificate also raised disputed factual questions unsuitable for adjudication in writ proceedings.

Since the relief sought would effectively require the Court to pass a money decree, and respondent No. 3 was a private entity against which no public duty was established, the Court held that the appropriate remedy lay in arbitration, if contractually available, or before the competent civil court.

Accordingly, the writ application was dismissed.

The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the claim by invoking any arbitration clause in the relevant contract or, in its absence, by approaching the competent civil court for recovery of the alleged dues.

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.