Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to adjudicate stale, unverified contractual claims involving disputed questions of fact.

The appellants were registered contractors in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) who migrated to Delhi in 1989 due to the deteriorating law and order situation in the Kashmir valley

They claimed that payments for works completed for the J&K Public Works Department (PWD) and other departments prior to their migration remained outstanding

In 2001, they filed a writ petition, and the Court directed the J&K Government to consider their claims

The J&K Government subsequently rejected the claims, stating that since the works were executed over two decades prior, records were unavailable and the concerned engineers had retired or passed away

The appellants challenged this rejection before a learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition on September 8, 2010, holding that the Court could not examine measurement books or verify 20-year-old claims under Article 226

Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can adjudicate upon and verify monetary claims arising from contracts where the relevant official records are unavailable due to the passage of time

Whether the refusal of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir to settle the appellants' claims constituted mala fide action

The Court primarily applied the principles governing the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which restricts the High Court from acting as a fact-finding authority in contractual disputes where claims require detailed evidentiary verification or when the state’s inability to verify such claims is based on plausible grounds such as the loss of records over time

The Court also considered the doctrine of mala fides, requiring clear evidence to prove that a state’s refusal to pay was motivated by malice rather than administrative impossibility

The Court observed that the claims pertained to works allegedly completed before 1989, making the dispute over 37 years old at the time of the appellate judgment

It noted that while the appellants argued that a partial payment of Rs. 32,200 (or Rs. 50,000 as claimed) indicated the existence of records, such payment did not prove that complete records were available for all claimed works

The Court reasoned that it is not feasible under writ jurisdiction to examine measurement books or determine the veracity of ancient claims when the State maintains that its officers have retired and records are non-existent

The Bench agreed with the Single Judge that the State's inability to verify works performed decades ago was "plausible" and did not indicate mala fides

Consequently, the Court held that the summary nature of Article 226 is ill-suited for resolving such deep factual and evidentiary disputes

The Court affirmed that it cannot exercise powers under Article 226 to direct payments when the underlying factual basis cannot be verified by the State due to the extreme passage of time

The petition was found to be devoid of merit