M/S Balram Singh vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 2240 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                    AT NAINITAL


            Writ Petition No. 790 of 2012 (M/S)

M/s Balram Singh                                       .....Petitioner

                               Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another
                                   ..........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram, Advocate for the respondents.

Hon'ble Alok Singh, J (Oral).

Present petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to release the dues of the petitioner pending against the respondent authorities for the work order i.e. for the work of underground cable laying construction work in Zone No. 3 of Dehradun SSA i.e. of area SDE Miya Wala, SDE Prem Nagar, SDE ONGC and SDE Laxmi Road.

Perusal of Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 10.1.2012 would reveal that initial value of tender awarded in favour of the petitioner was Rs. 36 lakhs, however, petitioner was made payment of Rs. 59,99,939/- only. The petitioner is claiming that Rs. 85,03,288/- is still outstanding against the respondent Department for the work done by the petitioner and the Department is not releasing the same to the petitioner saying that payment of outstanding amount cannot be made without there being any authority from the higher officials.

It is specifically mentioned in the letter dated 10.1.2012 that amount of Rs. 85,02,288/- cannot be released in favour of the petitioner due to lack of centrally monitoring system expenditure gone beyond tendered value and similarly field units could not observed their expenditure limits against the tender.

In view of the above, now a very important question of fact has arisen as to whether petitioner has done excessive work, which was duly sanctioned by the Department. This issue can only be decided after appreciation of the evidence, which is not possible while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Moreover, petitioner is claiming recovery of the amount arising out of the civil contract, therefore, petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing civil suit before the competent civil court. Since the Department is not admitting the liability of the payment for the excessive work done, therefore also, no direction seems to be justified directing the authorities to release the payment.

There is another aspect of the matter that writ of mandamus can be issued for enforcement of any constitutional or legal right. Mandamus, ordinarily, should not be issued to enforce the contractual right. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. Same is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to move appropriate civil court for the appropriate reliefs.

(Alok Singh, J.) 2.5.2014 Avneet