Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 872 (JHR)

Ganesh Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2021-10-18

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter no. 1142 dated 18th July, 2019, however, on perusal of the content of the prayer it appears that the petitioner has actually sought challenge to the order as contained in letter no. 841 dated 6th August, 2019 passed by the District Education Officer, Lohardaga the respondent no. 5, whereby in compliance of the order dated 09th October, 2018 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 610 of 2018, its claim has been rejected on the ground that the extension of time has not been granted to it and according to the measurement book, the measurement of the work has been shown as 25th April, 2015, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any further payment. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of the outstanding dues along with statutory interest for which the petitioner is entitled. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was awarded the work for construction of the building of Primary Teachers’ Training College (100 seats) at Chiri, Lohardaga vide NIT No. 1/2012-13. The petitioner completed the work and handed over the building to the Principal, Primary Teachers’ Training College, Chiri Lohardaga the respondent no. 6 on 23rd July, 2015. The petitioner received a sum of Rs. 2,44,84,617/- out of the total amount of Rs. 2,59,25,810/- which was agreed between the parties and the same is also mentioned in the measurement book. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote several letters to the concerned respondents for making payment of the balance amount of Rs. 14,41,194/- but no action was taken by the respondents. The petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 610 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order date 09th October, 2018 giving liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation before the respondent no. 5 and on receipt of the said representation the respondent no. 5 was directed to pass a fresh order. The respondent no. 5 failed to comply the order dated 09th October, 2018 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 610 of 2018 which led to filing of Contempt Case (Civil) No. 282 of 2019. The respondent no. 5 and on receipt of the said representation the respondent no. 5 was directed to pass a fresh order. The respondent no. 5 failed to comply the order dated 09th October, 2018 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 610 of 2018 which led to filing of Contempt Case (Civil) No. 282 of 2019. The respondent no. 5 filed show cause affidavit in the said contempt case and brought on record letter dated 18th July, 2019, whereby the Deputy Director, Primary Education made query from the respondent no. 5 as to whether the work was completed by the petitioner within time and any order was passed by a competent authority to extend the work period. It was further enquired as to whether TDS or other deduction was made in the case of the petitioner. The respondent no. 5 also brought on record letter no. 841 dated 06th August, 2019 whereby in compliance of the order dated 09th October, passed in W.P. (C) No. 610 of 2018, the respondent no. 5 passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner stating that the work was not completed within the stipulated period and in view of Clause 2 of the Conditions of Contract, the petitioner was liable for deduction of 10% of the agreement amount. It was further clarified that, after deduction, the petitioner was entitled to the amount of Rs. 2,28,57,565/- out of which he was paid an amount of Rs. 2,44,84,617/- which was excess payment in view of the conditions of the agreement. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner filed contempt case, its claim has been rejected on a completely new ground. It is further submitted that no such ground was earlier raised by the respondents either after filing of the representation by the petitioner or at the time of hearing of W.P. (C) No. 610 of 2018 and as such the ground of rejection as stated in the letter dated 06th August, 2019 is an afterthought. It is also submitted that the respondents should not be allowed to whimsically reject the legal claim of the petitioner on totally baseless ground. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in compliance of the order dated 09th October, 2018 passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 610 of 2018, the respondent no. It is also submitted that the respondents should not be allowed to whimsically reject the legal claim of the petitioner on totally baseless ground. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in compliance of the order dated 09th October, 2018 passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 610 of 2018, the respondent no. 5 passed a reasoned order and rejected the claim of the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the agreement which may not be interfered by this Court under writ jurisdiction. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. It appears that claim of the petitioner for payment of balance amount under the contract has been rejected by the respondent no. 5 vide letter dated 6th August, 2019 stating that the petitioner has already been paid more amount than what was the legally admissible to it. It has also been stated in the said letter that the petitioner had not completed the work within the stipulated period and as such in view of Clause 2 of the Conditions of Contract it was liable for deduction of 10% deduction of the agreement amount. 8. The petitioner has though claimed that the said ground is an afterthought, it has neither denied the fact that the work was not completed in time nor has denied the existence of clause 2 of the Conditions of the Contract. Moreover on consideration of the nature of dispute, it appears that no public law element is involved in the present case. It is purely a private dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. It is a trite law that the claim for payment of contractual amount (money claim) cannot be entertained under writ jurisdiction unless the same is an admitted one and if the respondents deny the claim of the petitioner on certain ground, the best course is to relegate it to the appropriate fact finding court/forum for determination of such dispute. In the present case, the respondents have not admitted the claim of the petitioner, rather have denied the same stating that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, it is not entitled to any further payment, rather has received more than what it legally deserved. 9. In the present case, the respondents have not admitted the claim of the petitioner, rather have denied the same stating that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, it is not entitled to any further payment, rather has received more than what it legally deserved. 9. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, this Court is not inclined to exercise the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction in this case and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take alternative recourse before the appropriate court of law/forum against the order as contained in letter no. 841 dated 06th August, 2019 as well as any other letter which is prejudicial to its claim.