Writ Petitions Seeking Payment of Dues Are Not Maintainable When Factual Claims Are Categorically Disputed.

The Petitioner, a Small Scale Industry, filed three writ petitions claiming unpaid dues for materials supplied under the MGNREGA scheme to various Development Blocks (Pub-Mangaldai, Sipajhar, and Pachim-Mangaldai) in Darrang District during 2015-2017

The Petitioner alleged that despite fulfilling supply orders, the State withheld outstanding amounts totaling approximately ₹9,74,625/-, ₹8,32,183/-, and ₹3,71,129/- respectively for the three cases

The Respondent (P&RD Department) filed a counter-affidavit categorically denying the claims, stating that verification by Block Development Officers revealed no such material bills were uploaded or reflected in the Management Information System (MIS)

The Petitioner failed to file a rejoinder/affidavit-in-reply for over nine months following the State's denial

1. Whether the High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can adjudicate on recovery of dues involving disputed questions of fact regarding the supply of materials and existence of outstanding bills

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if relegated to a civil court

The court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is unsuitable for resolving "disputed questions of facts" that require detailed factual adjudication and the leading of evidence

It further invoked Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the exclusion of time spent bona fide in a court without jurisdiction when computing the period of limitation for a subsequent suit

The Court observed that the Respondents issued a "categorical denial" of the Petitioner's entitlement, supported by letters from Block Development Officers asserting that the bills did not exist on the MIS platform

The Court reasoned that determining whether materials were actually supplied and whether payments remained outstanding constitutes a factual dispute that cannot be decided on the basis of affidavits alone

Since such a determination requires a forum where evidence can be formally led and tested, the Court held that the summary nature of writ proceedings was inappropriate for the relief sought

Acknowledging that the Petitioner had been "bonafidely and diligently" pursuing the writ petitions since 2020, the Court determined it equitable to protect the Petitioner’s right to approach a civil court

The Court held that the dismissal does not preclude the Petitioner from approaching a Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. The Court specifically ordered that the period from the date of filing the writ petitions (03.12.2020) until the date of the judgment shall be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the purpose of computing limitation for any future civil suit