Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for contractual money claims in the absence of admitted liability.

The petitioner, a proprietary firm, entered into an agreement with the Municipal Council, Shivpuri, for the maintenance and repair of tube wells.

The petitioner claimed to have completed the work according to specifications and submitted four sets of bills. While the respondents paid the first two bills (totaling approximately ₹46 lakh after tax deductions), they refused to accept or pay two subsequent bills amounting to ₹55,16,736/-.

The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus for the payment of the outstanding amount plus interest.

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable for the enforcement of monetary claims arising out of a contractual dispute when the liability is not admitted by the State.

Writ petitions in contractual matters are maintainable under Article 226, they are generally restricted to cases of "admitted liability" or where State action is patently arbitrary.

Writ jurisdiction is plenary but should not exclude alternative remedies unless the action violates Article 14 (ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.).

Non-payment of undisputed dues constitutes arbitrary action (Surya Constructions v. State of U.P. and M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager).

Money claims involving complex disputed questions of fact requiring oral evidence should be relegated to civil courts or arbitration (Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India).

The Court examined whether the respondents had ever accepted their liability for the outstanding ₹55,16,736/-.

Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that the agreement provided by the petitioner (Annexure P/2) was essentially a blank document consisting of stamp papers with no clear terms and conditions.

A report from the Collector suggested a dispute regarding the actual execution of the work, indicating the possibility that bills were raised without work being performed.

Since the liability was contested and not "admitted," the matter involved serious disputed questions of fact that could only be determined through evidentiary trial, making it unfit for summary writ jurisdiction.

The petition was dismissed; however, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Madhayastham Adhikaran (Arbitral Tribunal) or file a civil suit, directing the appropriate forum to decide the case independently on its merits.