Writ jurisdiction not meant to decide claim arising out of non-statutory contracts #indianlaws

A writ of Mandamus was sought in the present matter pertaining to alleged non-payment of dues under a contract of supply of goods. High Court held that in matter of such nature it would neither be prudent nor judicious for the Court to grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as in substance the relief sought was for obtaining a money decree, more so when contracts are purely non-statutory in nature. Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot appropriately decide issues relating to satisfactory performance of contract, rates quoted therein or quality of goods supplied or even whether the claim made is within limitation or otherwise.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed by the Court by further observing that there has been an increase in filing of such matters where instead of taking recourse to the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil court, recourse is taken to the writ jurisdiction, which is not permissible. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is intended to provide the ordinary civil remedy for the adjudication of such claims.

Subsequent to dismissal of writ petition wherein it was held that Petitioner therein can approach the appropriate forum or authority concerned, Petitioner submitted a representation before the concerned authority and on the basis of certain queries replied under the Right to Information Act, it was submitted through second writ petition that the claim would be maintainable.

To this the Court held that a second writ petition would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court since it had already been expressed by the Division Bench in the earlier proceedings that disputed questions of facts which were raised before the Court, could not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution.

[M/s Alaska Tech & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.]
(Allahabad HC, 08.05.2014)