Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1368 MP
Judgement Date : 31 January, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ON THE 31st OF JANUARY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 1991 of 2022
Between:-
M/S TRADING ENGINEERS, BUNGLOW NO-46,
OPPOSITE CANTONMENT BOARD, JHANSI,
( U . P . ) THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY SHRI SAURABH AGARWAL S/O
SHRI SATISH SHARAN AGARWAL, R/O
BUNGLOW NO-46, OPPOSITE CANTONMENT
BOARD, JHANSI, (U.P.) 284001
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ISHAN SONI, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JABALPUR
CENTRAL DIVISION, CPWD, SURVEY OF
INDIA COLONY, TYPE IV, QTR NO-3 AND 4,
NEAR KACHNAR CITY, VIJAY NAGAR,
JABALPUR (M.P.)
2. INDRA GANDHI NATIONAL TRIBAL
UN IVER S ITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
AMARKANTAK DISTRICT ANUPPUR M.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI J.K. JAIN, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL AND
SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR SHUKLA, ADVOCATE )
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that he was awarded a tender for construction of pharmacy building for respondent No.2. The work is completed and final bills have also been submitted. In spite of the same, the payments have not been made. Hence, the instant writ petition seeking recovery of about Rs.4.5 crores from the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of submitting Signature SAN Not Verified
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2022.02.01 19:27:26 IST
the bills, the payments have not been made. He relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 291, vide para 12 to contend that a writ petition is maintainable even in contractual matters.
However, on hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this matter. The question is not one of maintainability. Certainly a writ petition is
maintainable. It is whether the court would like to exercise discretion in the given facts of this case. On considering the contentions, we are of the view that this court cannot act as a recovery agent for the petitioner in order to recover the amount. The recovery of amounts are governed by contract. Therefore, it is more appropriate that he invokes his right under the contract. A writ court cannot be converted into a court for recovery of money for the petitioner. Hence, we decline to interfere.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
pp
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
PUSHPENDRA
PATEL
Date: 2022.02.01
19:27:26 IST
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!