The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a judgment delivered on October 17, 2025, has dismissed a writ petition filed by a contractor seeking payment for work allegedly performed, ruling that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate disputed questions of fact in contractual matters.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran dismissed WRIT-C No. 15336 of 2018, filed by Karmesh Kumar Srivastava, proprietor of Venus Trading Corpn. The core issue was whether the court could issue a writ of mandamus compelling payment when the respondents disputed the claim and asserted that all dues had already been cleared.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Karmesh Kumar Srivastava, sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to release payments, with interest, for work the petitioner’s firm allegedly carried out pursuant to a work order dated December 23, 2011.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava, submitted that the petitioner was allocated work via an official letter dated 23.12.2011 to construct an overhead tank in the Malin Basti of Madarpur and Zanna. It was further claimed that the petitioner also constructed a C.C. Road (700×3 meters), spread a sewer pipeline (1500 meters) at Rooma, constructed 60 sewer chambers at Rooma, and completed the top domes of overhead tanks at Madarpur (320 K.L.) and Zona (250 K.L.).
The petitioner contended that while the respondent Nigam paid for the C.C. Road and sewer chambers, the “balance amount as claimed by the petitioner was not paid.”
Conversely, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 5, submitted that “there is no admitted amount to be paid by the respondent Nigam.” It was argued that the petitioner had “not produced any document in support his statement” and that “no one from the Nigam had assured the petitioner that the claimed amount would be paid to him.”
The respondents, relying on paragraph 15 of their counter affidavit, asserted that “all the payments with regards to the work done by the petitioner has already been paid” and referred to a payment of Rs. 3,53,750 made via Cash Voucher No. 1412 and Cheque No. 754959, both dated February 4, 2012.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The judgment, authored by Hon’ble Vivek Saran, J., stated that after reviewing the petition, “we find that there is no document on record to establish that any specific amount was admitted to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner.”
The Bench observed that, on the contrary, “in various communications annexed with the petition, the respondents have demanded copy of work orders etc. on which petitioner claims to have worked for the respondents.” The court concluded, “Evidently the claim of the petitioner is disputed by the respondents.”
The High Court then cited several Supreme Court precedents clarifying the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes.
- Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil ((2000) 6 SCC 293): The court noted the Supreme Court’s holding that “The interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be the subject-matter of a writ petition.” It was also highlighted that a contract does not become “statutory” merely because it is for a public utility or awarded by a statutory body.
- Orissa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Bharati Industries ((2005) 12 SCC 725): The Bench referenced the principle that “Where a complicated question of fact is involved and the matter requires thorough proof on factual aspects, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition.”
- Union of India v. Puna Hinda ((2021) 10 SCC 690): The court cited this recent case, which held that “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 judgment noted that disputes over “how much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts.”
- M/S Bio Tech System v. State Of U.P. ((2020) 11 ADJ 488DB): The court also relied on a coordinate Bench judgment which emphasized that where a contract is non-statutory, “the contractual obligations are matters of private law and a writ would not lie to enforce a civil liability arising purely out of a contract.”
Applying these principles to the “present factual matrix,” the court found that the petitioner failed to “bring on record any document wherein the respondent authorities have admitted that a particular sum is owed to them.”
The court held: “It has to be kept in mind that when disputed questions of fact are present, the writ jurisdiction is not the viable forum, as such disputes cannot be decided upon bare exchange of affidavits. As clearly enunciated in the judgments cited above, in areas of contractual disputes, parties have to approach the civil courts or go for arbitration (if provided for).”
Decision
The High Court concluded that it would intervene only in “exceptional circumstances, when the outstanding payments are admitted by the respondents… and in no other case.”
As the respondents disputed the petitioner’s claim, the Bench ruled that it could not enter the arena. “Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed,” the court ordered. No order as to cost was made.
