Aadhar Stuumb Township P. Ltd. vs Uoi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 131 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   +       W.P.(C) 225/2009

                                              Date of decision : 16.01.2009

IN THE MATTER OF :

#AADHAR STUUMB TOWNSHIP P.LTD.       ...   Petitioner
!                 Through: Mr. Sanjiv Kakra, Advocate

                   versus


$UOI & ORS.                                           ..... Respondents
^                          Through:Mr.Arun Kumar Atul, Advocate for UOI
                                   Mr.Gaurav Sarin, Advocate for DDA


CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

    1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
       be allowed to see the Judgment? No.

    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.

    3. Whether the judgment should be
       reported in the Digest? No.

HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter

alia for quashing letter dated 3.1.2009 issued by the respondent No.3 DDA

to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to refund an amount of

Rs.27,45,419/- along with interest @ 12%, stated to have been

inadvertently paid to the petitioner in the year 2001, in respect of a contract

awarded to it.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was

awarded work of pile foundation in respect of 160 SFS Houses in Group-III,

at Shalimar Bagh in the year 1999-2000, which work was completed by the

petitioner in the year 2001, after seeking some extension of time. It is

stated that as the respondent/DDA failed to prepare and pay the final bill of

the petitioner company, it was compelled to institute a suit for recovery of

Rs.8,30,000/- against the DDA, registered as Suit No. 53/2005, which was

decreed in favour of the petitioner, vide order dated 18.8.2008. As per the

aforesaid decree passed by the learned ADJ, Delhi, a sum of Rs.4,14,934.90

paise along with interest thereon @ 6% per annum has been directed to be

paid to the petitioner by the respondent DDA.

3. Counsel for the petitioner states that recently, the petitioner has

received a demand letter dated 03.01.2009, impugned herein, calling upon it

to deposit amounts stated to have been inadvertently released by the DDA

to the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition.

4. The dispute raised in the present writ petition is purely in the

realm of contract. Based on the contract, the petitioner sought its civil

remedies against the respondent DDA by instituting a suit for recovery. The

petitioner and the respondent are governed by a decree and judgment

granted in favour of the petitioner in the said suit. The contract governing

the parties is a private contract and not of a public nature so as to invoke

the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Merely because the DDA is a statutory body, does not mean that the

contract governing the private parties casts a statutory obligation on the

DDA in the contractual field. The dispute raised by the petitioner relates to

the adjustment of amounts, subject matter of the contract. The grievance of

the petitioner is in respect of a non-statutory duly and governed by the

terms of the contract. If there is a breach of the terms of the contract, it

falls within the realm of private law field and a writ petition is not

maintainable since it is a public law remedy.

5. The contract cannot be treated as statutory merely because it is

for construction of SFS flats of a public utility like the DDA or because it has

been awarded by a statutory body. Even otherwise, perusal of the records

shows that without even bothering to reply to the impugned letter dated

03.01.2009 issued by the respondent/DDA, the petitioner has rushed to this

Court by challenging the demand. The petitioner had a civil remedy and still

has one, against the respondent which it is entitled to invoke. The same

holds true for the respondents too. The circumstances of this case do not

warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

6. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the

present writ petition, which is dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of

the present writ petition on account of its maintainability, it shall be open to

the petitioner to agitate its rights according to the principles of the Contract

Act, before the appropriate forum as may be available to it in law.

                                                             HIMA KOHLI,J
JANUARY    16, 2009
sk/rkb