Disputed contractual performance claims requiring evidence are unsuitable for determination in writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner, a contractor engaged for handling and transportation, claimed that ₹13,14,780 had been wrongly deducted from its bills.

The respondents maintained that transportation in May 2014 had been performed by M/s Rameshwaram Transport Company, not the petitioner, and that truck chits were issued in that company’s name.

After an earlier writ petition, the petitioner was directed to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC), which rejected the claim on 25 January 2019.

The petitioner challenged that decision, contending, among other things, that the GRC had not considered an affidavit from Rameshwaram Transport Company denying that it performed the work or received payment.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged an earlier communication dated 24 September 2016 rejecting its claim.

1. Whether the GRC’s rejection of the petitioner’s claim was erroneous, including because it failed to consider the petitioner’s submissions concerning the alleged affidavit.

2. Whether the petitioner could obtain recovery of the disputed deduction through writ jurisdiction where the parties disputed who performed the transportation work and the supporting records.

The Court applied the principle that a writ petition is not an appropriate means to determine a claim for payment when its resolution turns on disputed questions of fact; the claimant may pursue the remedy of a civil suit.

The respondents relied on Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India and Others, (2015) 7 SCC 728, in support of their objection to writ jurisdiction, but the Court did not separately analyse or expressly apply that precedent.

The GRC found that, although work slips had been issued in the petitioner’s name, the truck chits required to substantiate transportation were issued in Rameshwaram Transport Company’s name. The petitioner’s representative could not produce the truck chits when asked by the GRC.

The Court held that the GRC had not erred in rejecting the claim in light of that evidentiary deficiency and the unexplained issuance of the chits to another company.

It also noted that the earlier rejection communicated on 24 September 2016 had not been challenged.

Because the parties’ competing accounts raised factual disputes, the Court declined to determine entitlement to the deducted amount in writ proceedings.

It held that the petitioner could not claim the disputed payment as of right in writ jurisdiction and remained free to bring a civil suit; the Court’s observations would not affect that suit.