Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 398 (JK)

A. B. C. Computers v. State

2003-12-15

S.K.GUPTA

body2003
Per Honble Mr. Justice S.K. Gupta (Oral) The petitioner is running business of computer trade. He is stated to have undertaken some printing job for the respondent/Board in the year 1996 and a bill for Rs 43,950/- was submitted to the Board for payment. The petitioner is further stated to have approached the respondents several times but without any positive response. It was only after the services of legal notice that respondent No. 1 accorded sanction to the release of the bill amount in favour of the petitioner vide its order No. 651-B/KD of 2001 dated 10-11-2001 issued by Dy. Secretary, Administration, Srinagar Division but yet the payment has not been made. The non-payment of the bill amount, for the work completed by the petitioner in the year 1996, by the respondents, compelled him to approach the Court seeking a direction to the respondents for release of the amount in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the State Constitution. 2. The respondents have filed objections and submitted that in view of the averments in the writ petition, the remedy available to the petitioner is nor by way of the writ petition but by civil action before the appropriate forum. It is further stated that neither agreement was executed with the petitioner nor any supply order was given to him by the Board. The petitioner appears to have relied upon a communication by which he was requested by Dr. M.D. Khan to do some computer job for the Board. Further sub-mission of the respondents is that the sanction order, relied upon by the petitioner could not be acted upon as it was without the approval of the competent authority. It was further contended by the respondents that as the averments in the pleadings raised a disputed question of fact, the same are to be adjudicated upon by leading evidence which could be done only in a civil court and not in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the constitution of India. 3. It is not in dispute that there was no agreement executed between the parties with regard to the execution of the work for the printing by the petitioner. There was no supply order issued by the Board to execute the work. 3. It is not in dispute that there was no agreement executed between the parties with regard to the execution of the work for the printing by the petitioner. There was no supply order issued by the Board to execute the work. There is also nothing on record to show that if any rates were fixed or settled before the execution of the job. The claim of the petitioner is a matter which pertains to the recovery of an amount which admittedly cannot be looked into in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It raised a disputed questions of fact required to be determined in a civil court after payment of requisite court fee. 4. The petitioner is stated to have completed the work in the year 1996. He has approached the court in the year 2003 for the redressal of his grievances by filing this writ petition, after a lapse of seven years. It must be borne in mind that remedy available under Art. 226 of the Constitution is an equitable remedy. The petitioner is claiming equitable remedy after a long delay. The delay defeats the equity is exactly what has happened in the present case. On this account, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in enquity being barred by delay and latches. Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is not normally entertained to enforce the civil liability arising out of a breach of civil contract or to pay an amount due to the claimant as is handed down by the Apex Court in "Burmah Construction Company v. State of Orissa & Ors." (AIR 1962 SC. 1320). The petitioner, therefore, has miserably failed to make out a case of enforcement of any statutory obligation or fundamental right to maintain this writ petition.