State work-contract disputes must be pursued before the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Tribunal.

The petitioner was engaged by various Block Development Officers in Sitamarhi district to undertake work relating to the Socio-Economic and Caste Census, 2011.

Agreements were executed between the petitioner and the concerned Block Development Officers between 2 and 5 September 2013, and advances were paid to the petitioner.

The petitioner claimed that it had commenced and substantially completed the work, incurred expenditure, and submitted the prescribed Proformas A–E before the agreements were cancelled on 14 September 2013.

The petitioner initially approached the High Court in CWJC No. 1191 of 2014.

By order dated 9 February 2016, the High Court directed the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, to consider the petitioner’s representation and to make payment for any work found to have been completed before cancellation of the agreements.

Pursuant to that direction, the District Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s claim, finding that the petitioner had not completed the printing-related work before cancellation of the agreements.

The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the District Magistrate’s order and payment of Rs. 15,59,300, after adjustment of the advances received.

The respondents disputed the claim and contended that the matter involved contractual disputes and disputed questions of fact, for which an alternative statutory remedy was available before the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Tribunal.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for payment arising out of the execution, alleged part-performance, and cancellation of government work contracts could be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the remedy before the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Tribunal constituted under the 2008 Act?

Whether the High Court should examine the disputed factual question of the extent of work completed by the petitioner before cancellation of the agreements?

The Court applied the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, under which disputes relating to government work contracts are to be adjudicated by the statutory Tribunal.

Section 2(e) defines “dispute” broadly to include any difference concerning a claim arising from the execution or non-execution of the whole or part of a contract for works or services, including rescission of the contract.

The Court further applied the principle that a writ petition under Article 226 is ordinarily not the appropriate remedy where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists and adjudication would require determination of disputed contractual facts.

The petitioner’s entitlement depended upon factual determinations, including whether the work had actually been commenced or completed, the extent of work performed before cancellation, the admissibility of the submitted Proformas, and the adjustment of advances.

These matters arose directly from the execution and cancellation of government work contracts and therefore fell within the statutory definition of “dispute” under Section 2(e) of the 2008 Act.

Since the writ petition constituted a second round of litigation and an adequate statutory remedy was available before the Tribunal, the High Court declined to adjudicate the disputed contractual claims under Article 226.

The Court accordingly directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy rather than examining the correctness of the District Magistrate’s factual findings on merits.

It held that the contractual dispute, involving disputed questions of fact, should be raised before the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Tribunal under the 2008 Act.

The petitioner was directed to file an application before the Tribunal, along with all grounds and relevant documents, within one month from receipt of the order.

The Tribunal was directed to consider the limitation issue liberally and decide the matter within six months from the date of filing.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.