Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Puna Hinda - (Supreme Court) (06 Sep 2021)

Dispute could not be raised by way of a writ petition on the disputed questions of fact

MANU/SC/0601/2021

Contract

The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing an intra-court appeal and affirming the order passed by the learned Single Bench. The learned Single Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent- Puna Hinda who had sought quashing of letters dated 27th August, 2015 and 21st October, 2015 and also a direction to pay Rs. 31,57,16,134 with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

The learned Single Judge held that payment in terms of Final Joint Survey/Measurement Report dated 24th October, 2013 be taken into consideration for making revised Detailed Project Report (DPR) and thus passed necessary orders for payment of the amount due to the writ Petitioner within four months of the receipt of copy of the order. In an appeal filed by the Appellants, the Division Bench of the High Court held that resurvey for measurement and DPR would not be just and fair at this stage since five monsoons had passed. Therefore, the only option left to the Appellants was to approve the DPR and pay the pending bills on the basis of Final Joint Survey/Measurement Report dated 24th October, 2013.

The writ Petitioner was directed not to cut extra road formation width without obtaining proper written permission from the Competent Authority on 28.1.2013, and in case any formation work was carried out, no payment shall be made after the report of the Board of Officers.

The High Court has based its order on the ground that after five monsoons, the final measurements could not be ascertained. If the final measurements could not be done at the spot, the contemporary evidence and the measurement books prepared from time to time could be the basis for determining the liability of the Appellants. The Joint Survey Report is not an admitted measurement, though some officers might have signed it. The Report prepared after the completion of work wherein no such work done is reflected in the measurement book prepared during execution of work is an attempt to inflate the claim raised by the writ Petitioner. The entire amount claimed by the writ Petitioner is disputed.

Therefore, the dispute could not be raised by way of a writ petition on the disputed questions of fact. Though, the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in respect of pure contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts. There is no admission on the part of the Appellants to infer that the amount stands crystallized. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptance of Joint Survey Report by the competent authority, no right would accrue to the writ Petitioner only because measurements cannot be undertaken after passage of time.

The re-survey cannot take place but the measurement books of the work executed from time to time would form a reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to the writ Petitioner, but such process could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e., arbitration and not by the Writ Court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads. Appeal allowed.

Tags : AGREEMENT PAYMENT DIRECTION