Karnataka HC Declines To Decide Haveri Contractors’ Unpaid Municipal Work Claims, Citing Disputed Facts And No Work Orders

Four contractors petitioned under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking to quash endorsements dated 21 January 2019 rejecting or declining their claims and to obtain payment of bills, with interest—claimed at 18% in the respective petitions.

The respondents’ counsel stated that no work orders had been issued.

Petitioners’ counsel accepted that no work orders existed, but contended that the work had been carried out on oral instructions in accordance with the authorities’ practice.

The Court applied the principle that the High Court will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to resolve disputes involving disputed questions of fact.

No specific statute beyond the constitutional jurisdiction invoked, or any precedent, was cited or applied in the order.

The absence of work orders was admitted by the petitioners, whose claims instead rested on alleged oral instructions and the authorities’ practice.

Resolving whether the work was instructed, executed, and payable would therefore require determination of disputed facts.

The Court declined to determine those matters in writ proceedings and left the merits of the claims to an appropriate forum.

It reserved liberty to the petitioners to seek an appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

The order did not determine entitlement to payment or interest.