Gauhati High Court
Anurag Poddar vs The University Grants Commission And 3 ... on 28 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010101172025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/167/2025
ANURAG PODDAR
SON OF LATE MAHABIR PRASAD PODDAR, SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S.
BRAHMAPUTRA CONSTRUCTIONS, HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
BUSINESS AT GROUND FLOOR, RKG COMPLEX, A.T. ROAD, OPP. SBI ATM,
BHARALUMUKH, P.O. GUWAHATI -781009, DISTRICT KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ROOM NO. 102, 2 BAHADURSHAH,
ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI - 110002.
2:THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
NERO
REPRESENTED BY ITS EDUCATION OFFICER
3RD FLOOR
HOUSEFED RENTAL BLOCK NO. V
BELTOLA
BASISTHA ROAD
DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006
ASSAM.
3:THE DIMORIA COLLEGE
KHETRI
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
DIMORIA COLLEGE
KHETRI, PIN- 782403
DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM.
4:MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL (MSEFC)
ASSAM.
COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES
Page No.# 2/6
GOVT. OF ASSAM
UDYOG BHAWAN
BAMUNIMAIDAN
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUWAHATI
DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
PIN781021
For the petitioners/appellants : Mr. O.P. Bhati, Advocate
Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate
For respondent(s) : Mr. A. Chamuah, SC, UGC
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MRs. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
28.05.2025
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard
Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel, University Grants Commission, appearing
for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. This intra-court appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order
dated 02.04.2025, passed in WP(C) No. 3575/2020, whereby the learned Single Judge
has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, while observing that the
impugned order shall not preclude the writ petitioner/appellant herein to exercise and
opt for any other remedy available under the law for redressal of his grievance and the
impugned order shall not be treated as any comment on the claim or counter claim of
the contesting parties.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, being a contractor, was
awarded a contract for construction of (a) swimming pool including boundary wall,
changing room, toilet, store, pump house, plumbing, landscaping, tiles fitting, boring,
septic tank, overhead tank, waterproofing, earthwork, construction of two rooms
guest house with balcony and bathrooms on the top of the changing room, gallery of
Page No.# 3/6
three rows on the one side of the boundary wall (civil, sanitary, water supply, electrical
machinery etc.) and (b) supply, installation and commissioning of mechanical, electro-
mechanical equipments (on turnkey basis) etc.
4. The appellant claims that he has completed 70% of the work and as per the
contract agreement he is entitled to get payment of Rs. 70,14,473/-. However, the
respondent authority has made a payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the remaining
amount of Rs. 20,14,473/- has not been paid to him despite repeated demands.
5. The respondent college as well as the State respondents have refuted the claim
of the appellant while contending that the appellant has failed to complete the
construction work allotted to him and he abandoned the contract without any
justifiable reason and, therefore, appellant is not entitled to get payment of the
remaining amount of Rs. 20,14,473/- as claimed by him.
6. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the rival stand of the
parties, has disposed of the writ petition while observing as under:
"12. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the agreement entered into
between the parties for execution of the works as well as the work order.
13. In terms of the work order, the payment is required to be made for civil work
according to the progress of the work and approved by the college construction
committee and for purchase of imported electro mechanical equipments, 70% of
the cost of the equipments will be given as an advance after due approval of the
college construction committee.
14. From the aforesaid, it is seen that the contract is between an instrumentality
of the State and the petitioner and from the pleading of both the parties, it is
also seen that the dispute is relatable to breach of contract. On the one hand,
the petitioner asserts that he could not execute the work for the fault of the
respondent, particularly, for three reasons that (i) non removal of high tension
electric line above the proposed swimming pool and (ii) the respondents have
failed to adhere to the condition of 70% advance against the imported electro
mechanical equipments and (iii) non-payment of the remaining due. On the other
hand, the respondent No. 3 contends that they had already paid the running
bill to the petitioner, the petitioner had abandoned the work and the authority
has time removed the high tension electric line.
15. It is true that in case, the State is a party to the contract and a breach of
contract is alleged against the State, a civil action is the appropriate forum
Page No.# 4/6
though it cannot be said that in all cases, writ petition shall not be maintainable
inasmuch as such writ petition shall be maintainable in a given facts of the
case, when the State fails to act fairly and their action is arbitrary. However, as
held in M. P. Power Management Company Limited -Vs- M/s Sky Power Southest Solar
India reported in 2023 2 SCC 703, every case, involving breach of contract by the
State, cannot be dressed up and disguised as a case of arbitrary State action.
16. In the case in hand as recorded hereinabove, the issue revolves is to the
effect that whether the petitioner could not complete the work in due time for
non payment of outstanding due and/or for non-payment of 70% advance as
agreed when the respondent has taken a stand that the petitioner has
abandoned the project and denied the contention at paragraph 9 as regards
non-payment of advance of 70%.
17. In the considered opinion of this Court, such allegation and counter
allegation cannot be decided in a writ proceeding which requires adjudication of
serious disputed question of facts.
18. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition.
Accordingly, same stands dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the
petitioner to exercise and opt for any other remedy available under law for
redressal of his grievance and this order shall not be treated as any comment
on the claim or counter claim of the contesting parties."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the impugned order, has argued
that it is settled position that in contractual matters, where there is no serious dispute,
the writ court can interfere. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the
appellant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in
(2020) 9 SCC 356 and M.P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur vs.
M/s Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited and others , reported in
(2023) 2 SCC 703.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case no
serious or disputed question of fact arises because the respondent No. 3 and other
respondents have accepted the claim of the appellant for payment of the remaining
amount of Rs. 20,14,473/- while issuing certain communications and letters. It is
contended that in the above-referred circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought
to have exercised writ jurisdiction and should have granted the relief claimed by the
Page No.# 5/6
appellant.
9. Per contra, Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.
1 and 2 has supported the impugned judgment and has argued that the learned
Single Judge has not committed any illegality in not interfering with the matter,
because certain seriously disputed questions of facts are involved in the matter and
the matter being a contractual matter, the relief prayed for in the writ petition has
been rightly refused to the writ petitioner/appellant.
10. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the material available on record.
11. There is no quarrel about the position of law that there is no prohibition for the
writ court to entertain a writ petition on contractual matters and also the writ court
can interfere in a contractual matter. However, in the present case the learned Single
Judge has specifically taken into consideration the fact that on one hand the appellant
is claiming that he has already executed the work assigned to him, except around
30% of the works, for which only the respondent No. 3 was responsible because the
High Tension Electricity Line was not removed within time; whereas, on the other
hand, the respondent No. 3 is claiming that the High Tension Electricity Line was
removed in time but the appellant failed to complete the work assigned to him and
abandoned the work.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgment rendered in the case of Airports
Authority of India vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (Civil Appeal No(s) 8414 of 2027 ,
has dealt with the issue of intra-court jurisdiction to be exercised by the appellate
court and has held as under:
"36. The law relating to the exercise of intra-Court jurisdiction is crystallised by
this Court in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited
v. Workmen of Narendra & Company, 30 wherein it was held as under:
"5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had come to
the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January 1995,
there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further
Page No.# 6/6
material before the Division Bench. The Appellate Bench ought to have
noticed that the statement of MW 3 is itself part of the evidence before the
Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of
fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of
the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely
because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no
interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge,
unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief."
(emphasis supplied)
37. The position is, thus, settled that in an intra-court writ appeal, the Appellate
Court must restrain itself and the interference into the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge is permissible only if the judgment of the learned Single
Judge is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law. However, the
Division Bench, in the present case, failed to record any such finding and
rather, proceeded to delve into extensive reappreciation of evidence to overturn
the judgment of the learned Single Judge."
13. Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in
view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Airports Authority of
India (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned
Single Judge, while refusing to grant the relief as claimed by the writ
petitioner/appellant, is a plausible view which cannot be disturbed while exercising
intra-court jurisdiction.
Hence, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
