Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unavailable for disputed contractual monetary claims with an agreed alternative remedy.

The petitioner, a Class-I government contractor, was awarded a contract in 2008 for construction of RCC Bridge No. 166/5 (balance work), including Bridge No. 166/4 within the approach, on NH-62, South Garo Hills, for a tender value of ₹4,87,30,500.

The work was completed and handed over in June 2013, though the petitioner alleged that the final bill and other contractual dues remained unpaid.

The petitioner initially claimed ₹4,08,30,668 as outstanding and issued several representations between 2014 and 2020, followed by a legal notice dated 23 April 2021 demanding payment with interest at 18% per annum.

During the proceedings, the petitioner asserted additional claims towards withheld amounts, price-escalation bills, security deposit, earnest money, and the final bill, totalling ₹4,90,94,964.

The respondents disputed the claims, contending that ₹4,47,37,169 had already been paid, that the petitioner had delayed completion by more than three years, and that the contract did not permit price escalation.

The respondents further relied on the arbitration clause contained in Clause 25.3 of the contract and objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds of disputed facts, availability of an alternative remedy, and delay and laches.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for enforcement of disputed monetary claims arising out of a non-statutory works contract involving disputed measurements, quantities, price escalation, payments, and contractual entitlements?

Whether the existence of an arbitration clause and an alternative contractual remedy required the High Court to decline exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction?

Whether the petitioner’s claims were barred or adversely affected by delay and laches arising from the completion of the work in 2013 and institution of the writ petition in 2022?

The Court applied the principle that although Article 226 jurisdiction is wide and is not absolutely barred in contractual or monetary matters, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where the dispute arises from a purely contractual relationship, involves serious disputed questions of fact, or requires examination of evidence such as measurement books, bills, quantities, and contractual records.

Relying on Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728, and Union of India v. Puna Hinda, (2021) 10 SCC 690, the Court held that contractual disputes should ordinarily be resolved through the forum agreed by the parties, particularly arbitration, and that money claims arising from contractual obligations are normally not entertained in writ proceedings.

The Court also relied on Priyanchi R. Marak v. State of Meghalaya, holding that writ proceedings conducted on affidavit evidence are unsuitable for resolving disputed facts requiring proof and that monetary claims arising from execution of works should ordinarily be pursued before a civil court or other competent forum.

Since the writ petition had remained pending for a considerable period, the Court directed that the time spent in the writ proceedings be excluded for limitation purposes if the petitioner approached the civil court within 60 days.

The Court found that the petitioner’s claim was not a simple admitted debt.

The pleadings and submissions disclosed substantial disputes regarding the amount actually payable, payments already released, quantities exceeding the BOQ, withheld amounts, entitlement to price escalation, security deposit, earnest money, and preparation of the final bill.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had introduced the price-escalation claims in the rejoinder rather than in the original petition, without obtaining leave to raise the new claims or giving the respondents an adequate opportunity to answer them.

Determining these matters would require examination of contractual documents, measurements, bills, approvals, and other evidence, which was inappropriate in a summary writ proceeding.

In view of the arbitration clause and the existence of an appropriate civil or contractual forum, the Court exercised restraint under Article 226 and declined to adjudicate the monetary claims on merits.

The petitioner was directed to pursue the appropriate remedy before a competent civil court.

If the petitioner approached the civil court within 60 days from the date of the order, the period spent prosecuting the writ petition would be condoned/excluded for the purposes of limitation.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.