The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that High Courts can entertain writ petitions for money claims if non-payment by state authorities amounts to arbitrary action. Restoring two writ petitions filed by M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors, the bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan criticized the Orissa High Court for dismissing the petitions after ten years of litigation on the ground of alternative remedies.
The court emphasized that “non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action,” and stated that long delays and exchanged affidavits made dismissal inappropriate. The writ petitions were remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication. This judgment underscores the applicability of writ jurisdiction in resolving monetary disputes involving state arbitrariness.
Background of the Case
M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors filed two writ petitions before the Orissa High Court in 2010, challenging the non-payment of dues for completed contractual work. Both matters had progressed to an advanced stage, with parties exchanging affidavits. However, in 2022, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, citing the availability of alternative remedies and alleged time-barred claims.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Avijit Patnaik, contended that the High Court’s decision ignored the arbitrariness of non-payment and the advanced procedural status of the cases. Senior counsel K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the respondents, acknowledged the exchange of affidavits but argued the disputes involved monetary claims unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.
Legal Issues
The case raised important questions about:
1. Scope of Writ Jurisdiction: Can writ petitions be entertained for money claims in cases of admitted dues and arbitrary state action?
2. Delay and Alternative Remedies: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing a case after ten years, despite no factual disputes requiring formal evidence.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court underscored that it is not an inviolable rule that monetary claims cannot be entertained under writ jurisdiction. Quoting precedents, the bench stated:
“Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie.”
The court further criticized the High Court for dismissing the petitions without addressing the exchanged affidavits or establishing any factual disputes necessitating alternative remedies.
Decision and Directions
The Supreme Court restored the writ petitions to their original numbers for fresh adjudication by the High Court. It emphasized the need for expeditious disposal, considering the decade-long pendency.
“Throwing a writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.”
Parties and Counsel
– Appellant: M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors, represented by Advocate Avijit Patnaik.
– Respondents: Chief General Manager & Ors., represented by Senior Advocate K.M. Nataraj.
