Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 279 of 2021 with
WP(C) No. 359 of 2021
Date of Decision: 26.04.2024
In WP(C) No. 279 of 2021
Smti. Priyanchi R. Marak
W/o Shri. Septerwin R. Marak
R/o Chidarebokma, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya
…….Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Meghalaya
Represented by the Chief Secretary
Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong
2. Deputy Commissioner
(Revenue) North Garo Hills District, Resubelpara, Meghalaya.
3. The Deputy Secretary
Revenue and Disaster
Department, Meghalaya, Shillong.
4. The Joint Secretary
Revenue & Disaster Management
Department, Shillong, Meghalaya
5. District A.H. and Veterinary
Officer, North Garo Hills,
Resubelpara, Meghalaya.
Respondents
…….
In WP(C) No. 359 of 2021
Smti. Cerine N Marak,
W/o (L) Silka D Shira,
1
R/o Dilma, P.O. Mendipathar,
North Garo Hills District, Meghalaya
[Substituted as per Court’s order dated 22.08.2023]
…….Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Meghalaya
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Revenue and
Disaster Management Department,
Government of Meghalaya, Shillong
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
North Garo Hills District, Resubelpara, Meghalaya
3. The District Animal Husbandry &
Veterinary Officer, Resubelpara,
(Gangdubi) North Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya
……Respondents
Coram:
Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Hon’ble Mr.
Appearance:
In WP(C) No. 279 of 2021
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. P. Biswakarma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Kumar, AG with
Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl. Sr. GA
In WP(C) No. 359 of 2021
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Deb, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Kumar, AG with
Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl. Sr. GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
2
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
1. These two writ petitions although filed separately by two
petitioners, involved a dispute which arose from a common source, that is,
the grievance of the respective petitioner wherewith their fundamental and
legal rights have allegedly been violated by the relevant authorities,
particularly the fact that in spite of the petitioners having fulfilled their
contractual obligation in the area of supply of cattle, poultry and pig feed,
the respondents have failed to make payment of the same even after many
long years.
2. It is in this background that this Court would consider it
convenient to take up both the matters and to pass a common order.
3. In the case of Priyanchi Marak [WP(C) No. 279 of 2021], it is the
submission of the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner Mr. H.L.
Shangreiso that the petitioner was selected to take on the task of supply of
animal and poultry feed to animals and poultry affected by the flash
flood/landslide which occurred in the North Garo Hills areas on
22.09.2014. The selection was the result of a resolution passed in the
meeting held on 05.12.2014 which was chaired by the Addl. Deputy
Commissioner (Rev), North Garo Hills whereby a Committee in
connection with the approved rate for supply of feed on an urgent and
emergency need, was convened.
4. In the said meeting, it was decided and approved that the rate per
kilogram for transportation cost and for supply of feed for the animals and
- (rupees thirty-five) only.
poultry feed in North Garo Hills shall be ₹ 35/
3
Consequently, three firms/suppliers were selected for the said purpose, the
petitioner being one of them, being duly notified vide communication
No.DVOR/Flood/2014-2015/3150, dated 08.12.2014 issued by the
District A.H. & Vety. Officer, Resubelpara (Gangdubi), North Garo Hills.
It was also mentioned in the said letter that the petitioner is to supply
3428.5715 quintals of cattle feed and 1428.5715 quintals of pig feed.
5. Again, vide order dated 21.01.2015, the District A.H. & Vety.
Officer, has called upon the petitioner to supply 1428.5715 quintals of
poultry feed to different Dispensaries and Aid Distribution. All the orders
were duly complied with by the petitioner for which the District A.H. &
Vety. Officer has issued the Utilisation Certificate, annexed as Annexure-
5 in this petition. The total claim of this
petitioner amounts to ₹
2,20,00,000/- (rupees two crores twenty lakhs) only.
6. It is also the submission of the learned Sr. counsel that the
petitioner has submitted the bills on account of the supply of the said
materials to the District A.H. & Vety. Officer and in turn, the Deputy
Commissioner(Rev), North Garo Hills District has forwarded the same to
the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management vide letter dated
04.10.2018. Not having received any response to the said letter, the
Deputy Commissioner(Rev) NGH has once again forwarded another letter
of the District A.H. & Veterinary Officer to the Joint Secretary, Revenue
and Disaster Management, the same being dated 19.11.2019.
7. The learned Sr. counsel has further submitted that on verbal
assurance that the said bills will be cleared, the petitioner has waited for
about 7 years for release of the payment, but since no response was
4
forthcoming, the petitioner filed a representation dated 18.02.2020 before
the District A.H. & Vety. Officer. However, even after 9 months of the
said representation, no positive reply was received from the relevant
respondents, the petitioner/firm was compelled to approach this Court
with a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 424 of 2020. This Court vide order
dated 15.12.2020, had disposed of the said petition with a direction to the
respondents to decide on the said representation dated 18.02.2020
preferably within four weeks.
8. It is the submission of the learned Sr. counsel that the respondent/
District A.H. & Veterinary Officer had addressed a letter No.
DVR/DISTR-166/2020-21/1200 dated 04.01.2021 to the petitioner with
an intimation that the order dated 15.12.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 424
of 2020 was forwarded on 23.12.2020 to the respondent/Deputy
Commissioner(Rev.) for necessary action, but no response was received.
However, it was assured that as and when the fund is made available, the
said payment will be made.
9. The learned Sr. counsel has submitted that in spite of the said
letter dated 04.01.2021, no action was taken by the relevant authority to
settle the bill of the petitioner even after nine months have passed which
has eventually compelled the petitioner to prefer this instant writ petition
seeking necessary direction to the concerned authority to release the bills
of the petitioner.
10. The respondent No. 5 vide the letter dated 04.01.2021 has made
it very clear that the bill of the petitioner will be settled by the Government
as and when the required fund is made available. Not having received any
5
positive response even after nine months of waiting for the same, the
petitioner has eventually approached this Court, therefore there is no
question of delay or laches in filing this instant writ petition. The case of
P.C. Sethi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1975) 4 SCC 67
at para 22 was cited by the learned Sr. counsel in this regard.
11. The case of Silka D. Shira (since deceased) now substituted by
the present petitioner Smti. Cerine N. Marak appearing through Mr. S.
Deb, learned counsel is similar and identical to the case of Smti. Priyanchi
Marak as far as the order for supply of animals, poultry and pig feed to
cater to the emergency situation which arose as a consequence of the flash
flood which occurred in North Garo Hills District on 22.09.2014 is
concerned, however the only difference is the quantity of the feed to be
supplied which in this case the petitioner was called upon to supply 6000
quintals of cattle feed, 2500 quintals of pig feed and 10,000 quintals of
poultry feed 00/kg.
@ ₹ 35 The total claim of this petitioner amounts to ₹
6,47,50,000/- (rupees six crores forty-seven lakhs and fifty thousand) only
12. On the contention of the learned Advocate General appearing for
the respondents that there are disputed question of facts involved in this
case, the learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the respondent No.
5/District AH & Veterinary Officer, North Garo Hills in his affidavit-in-
opposition filed before this Court on 20.03.2023 at para 19 through 31, he
has confirmed the factual aspects as has been stated by the petitioner that
due to the occurrence of flash flood in the North Garo Hills District in the
month of September, 2014 which caused large scale destruction in the
region, thus, necessitating urgent relief and rehabilitation measures to be
taken, one of such measures being providing of necessary feed for the
6
affected animals and poultry, the urgent and emergency nature of the
situation prompted the relevant authority to issue supply order to the
petitioner for supply of the said poultry and animal feed which was done
so. It is also the admission of the respondent No. 5 that the bills of the
petitioner presented before him was forwarded to the competent authority
by the respondent No. 2/Deputy Commissioner, North Garo Hills District.
The only reason why such bills were withheld was because of the
objection raised by the relevant State authority in the Revenue & Disaster
Management Department, that proper procedure, especially the provision
of para 6(ii) of the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) and National
Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) which pertains to provision of
fodder/feed concentrate including water supply and medicines in cattle
camps, have not been adhered to by the petitioner.
13. The learned Sr. counsel has submitted that this contention is
totally misplaced since the respondent No. 5 in due course has clarified
that the said animal and poultry feed has been supplied to the relief camps
and the State Government cannot repudiate in court the contents of the
affidavit filed by a Senior Government Official by a contradictory
affidavit filed by another Government Official. In this regard, the case of
Sanjay K. Sinha-II & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2004) 10 SCC 734,
para 15 and also the case of Central Warehousing Corporation v. Adani
Ports Special Economic Zone Limited (APSEZL) & Ors., (2022) 15 SCC
110, para 57 as well as the case of Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited
v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 1 SCC 560, para 14 was cited
in support of this contention.
14. The learned Sr. counsel has also pleaded arbitrariness on the part
7
of the relevant respondent authority in not clearing the bills of the
petitioner when apparently in the case of a similarly situated contractor
and supplier namely M/s Gautam Enterprises, Tura, West Garo Hills,
pursuant to similar work orders dated 27.11.2014, 08.12.2014 and
21.01.2015 where utilization certificate was issued by the respondent No.
5 in 2015 itself, the respondent authorities have sanctioned and released
6,200/- to the said supplier, whereas, in the case of
an amount of ₹ 1,02,6
the petitioner the bills have not been cleared till date.
15. Apart from the authorities cited above, the petitioner has also
relied upon the following cases in support of its case.
i. Ram Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 1 SCC
44, para 16;
ii. Bharat Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1988) 4
SCC 534, para 13;
iii. State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh & Ors., (2016) 1 SCC
724, para 4;
iv. Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust Through President & Anr. v.
Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel & Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 310, para
8, 28 and 29;
v. State of Orissa & Ors. v. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd.,
(2004) 1 SCC 139, para 4.
16. Also heard Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner in
[WP(C) No. 359 of 2021] who, in his submission on the factual matrix of
8
the case has also referred to the same set of circumstances as was pointed
by the learned Sr. counsel in [WP(C) No. 279 of 2021]. The fact that the
supply order was given to this petitioner for supply of cattle, poultry and
pig feed for distribution at the relief camps has not been disputed by the
respondents, resulting in a response by the respondent No. 5 to the
submission of the bills in this respect, whereby vide letter No.
DVR/Disaster-166/2021-22/5072 dated 26.10.2021 the original deceased
petitioner was informed that he is yet to receive the payment from the
Disaster and Revenue Department to enable him to make payment to the
petitioner is a clear indication that there is no dispute in this regard,
submits the learned counsel.
17. On the issue of disputed question of facts, the learned counsel has
submitted that the respondent/District Animal Husbandry & Veterinary
Officer, NGH has clearly indicated at para 18, 19 and 20 of the affidavit-
in-opposition that on enquiry due to the emergent nature of the situation,
the petitioner being identified as one such firm who can supply the
required items on short notice, therefore vide resolution passed in the
meeting held on 05.12.2014, wherein the price of 35/- per kg for the feed
₹
was approved, following the norms laid down at para 6(ii) of the State
Disaster Response Fund(SDRF) and National Disaster Response
Fund(NDRF), the supply order was given to this petitioner. There is no
scope of disputed questions of facts, further submits the learned counsel.
18. The learned counsel has further submitted that on perusal of para
26 of the said affidavit of the respondent No. 3/District Animal Husbandry
and Veterinary Officer, what can be understood is that it is only at the
stage when the petitioner has submitted the bills that the State Government
9
through the Revenue and Disaster Management Department has raised
certain objections for the clearance of the bills, the only objection being
that the feed was not supplied to the relief camps, which is a violation of
the provision of 6(ii) (supra), when however, the same Officer, that is, the
District Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Officer has subsequently
clarified that the feed was indeed supplied at the relief camps, though such
fact was inadvertently not mentioned at the first instance.
19. The learned counsel has also endorsed the submission of the
learned Sr. counsel of the petitioner Smti. Priyanchi R. Marak to say that
the issue of parity has to be considered by this Court when for the same
supply order given to three firms, including the petitioners herein, the final
bill was paid only to one firm, thereby occasioning arbitrariness in the
process.
20. Per contra, Mr. A. Kumar, learned Advocate General appearing
on behalf of the respondents contesting the contention of the petitioners
has submitted that the case of the petitioners refers to an alleged supply of
cattle, pig and poultry feed pursuance to the letters of the District A&H
and Veterinary Officer, North Garo Hills dated 08.12.2014 and
21.01.2015 on account of the situation which arose after the flash
flood/landslide which occurred on 22.09.2014 in the North Garo Hills
District.
21. The learned AG has also submitted that the petitioners has
approached this Court only in the month of October, 2021, that is after
almost seven years of the alleged supply with a prayer for direction to
make payment of the - (Rupees two crore
bill amounting to ₹ 2,20,00,000/
10
twenty lakh) only and in the other case, for payment of the bill amounting
to 6,00,00,000/- (rupees six crores) only. These petitions are therefore
₹
not maintainable solely on the ground of delay and laches.
22. On the issue of delay and laches, the learned AG has cited the
following authorities:
i. City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu
Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, (2009) 1 SCC 168, para 26 and
30;
ii. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman
& Managing Director & Anr. v. K. Thangappan & Anr.
(2006) 4 SCC 322, para 6.
23. It is also the submission of the learned AG that an observation of
the entirety of the case of the petitioners would reveal that there is apparent
a question of disputed facts for which the petitioners could not have
approached this Court by way of a writ petition since there is an alternative
remedy by way of a civil suit.
24. On the factual aspects, the learned AG has submitted that the case
of the petitioners was based on a resolution passed in a meeting held on
05.12.2014 in the office chamber of the Additional Deputy Commissioner
(Rev), North Garo Hills District wherein a
sum of ₹ 35 per kg for
transportation and supply of feed for animal and poultry for the affected
people in North Garo Hills was agreed to and that three firms/suppliers for
supply of the said cattle and poultry feed was also selected in the said
meeting, the petitioners being such firms/suppliers. However, such
11
resolution was required to be approved by the State Executive Committee,
Disaster Relief Management Authority following adherence to certain
norms. Such approval cannot be given beyond 30 days extendable to 60
days. Even the selection of suppliers in case the supply amount is greater
than 50,000/- the same has to be by a bidding process which was not done
so and as such, the decision by the concerned Government Officials cannot
bind the Government if the proper procedure was not followed.
25. In this regard, the learned AG has submitted that in the event such
natural disaster occurs in the region, the norms for assistance from the
State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) and National Disaster Response
Fund (NDRF) have been laid down Revised List of Items and
in the ‘
Norms of Assistance from State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) and
National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) , dated 28.11.2013 wherein at
’
Sl. No. 6 -Assistance to Small and
under the heading ‘Animal Husbandry
Marginal Farmers Item 6(ii) provides for provision of fodder/feed
’,
concentrate including water supply and medicines in cattle camps and the
rate and period for providing such relief have also been indicated therein
in the next column - per day for large
, the rate of compensation being ₹ 50/
- per day for small animals, the period of assistance being
animals and ₹ 25/
30 days which may be extended upto 60 days in the first instance.
26. It is the contention of the State respondent that the norms
mentioned herein above have not been complied with by the petitioners
since admittedly the flash flood had occurred on 22.09.2014 and orders
for supply of the animal, poultry and pig feed have been placed only on
08.12.2014 and 21.01.2015, that is after 77 and 121 days respectively
which is beyond the prescribed number of days as found in the provision
12
of 6(ii) of the Revised List of Items and Norms of Assistance from State
‘
Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) and National Disaster Response Fund
(NDRF) , dated 28.11.2013.
’
27. Again, as per the said norms at 6(ii) (supra) the feed was
supposed to be supplied at specific relief camps set up for the purpose.
However, the feed allegedly supplied by the petitioners has not been done
so at such relief camps as no such relief camps were set up at the relevant
point of time which fact is evident from the communication
th
No.DVR/FLOOD-168/2015-16/1412 dated 16 October, 2015 issued
upon the Deputy Commissioner (Rev), North Garo Hills by the District
A.H. & Vety. Officer, North Garo Hills wherein it is admitted that relief
camps for flood affected livestock could not be set up during the flood for
the reasons stated therein. The subsequent clarification issued by the
District A.H. & Vety. Officer vide communication No.DVR/FLOOD-
st
168/20116-17/1032 dated 21 October, 2016 that the earlier
communication was a mistake when in fact relief camps have been set up
during such period, would only expose the contradictory stand made by
the concerned Government Official.
28. The learned AG has therefore submitted that this instant petition
is not maintainable since there are disputed question of facts arising from
contractual matters, the transaction purportedly entered into by the
petitioners and the relevant Government Officials being contractual in
nature, therefore, such dispute cannot be raised by way of a writ petition.
In this regard, the following authorities have been cited:
i. Kerela State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Kurien E. Kalathil
13
& Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 293, para 10 and 11;
ii. Union of India & Ors. v. Puna Hinda, (2021) 10 SCC 690,
para 24;
iii. Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India &
Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 728, para 55, 59 and 69;
29. Facts as stated hereinabove need not be repeated but would be
referred to if found appropriate. The first issue which requires decision is
whether this petition is maintainable or not on the ground of the same
being barred by delay and laches, the respondent maintaining that for a
purported transaction which took place in the year 2014-15 the petitioners
have approached this Court only after seven years or so without any
explanation as to why the delay was caused. The respondent has cited the
case of City and Industrial Development (supra), para 26 and 30, as well
as the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd (supra), para 6, wherein
observed that
in the relevant para the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
inordinate delay and failure to explain such delay when approaching a
Constitutional Court is not ordinarily permitted. However, it is observed
that such delay or laches would be taken into account if it causes hardship,
injustice and inconvenience on third parties.
30. The petitioners has contended that there is no question of delay
or laches considering the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the
petitioners having pursued the matter all along and finally being assured
of a positive reaction from the relevant respondent vide the impugned
letter dated 04.01.2021 (Annexure-11 to the petition) by which the
respondent No. 5 has assured that payment will be made to the petitioner
14
as and when the fund is made available, therefore, the issue is still
subsisting and hence no delay has been caused in the process of preferring
this instant writ petition.
31. The argument of the petitioner in this regard is found acceptable
by this Court and the authority in the case of P.C. Sethi (supra) at para 22
of the same is also found relevant
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed The learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously
that “
contended that the petition may be dismissed on account of delay and
laches. In view of the entire circumstances of the case and the hopes held
out by the Government from time to time we are not prepared to accede to
this submission there is no question of delay or laches while
”. Therefore,
filing this petition.
32. The next issue which requires attention is the contention of the
respondent that from the summary of facts and circumstances, recounted
by the petitioner, the genesis being the resolution of the meeting held of
05.12.2014 (Annexure-II) and also another letter of even date which
revealed the communication from the respondent No. 2 to the respondent
No. 5 (Annexure-II) indicating therein that the petitioner has been selected
as a supplier of animal and poultry feed. The sequence of events showing
that the petitioner has complied with the order to supply such animal and
poultry feed but was not yet paid for the cost of materials and transport
charges, would only confirm that the entire matter relates to a contract
between the petitioner and the Government on one side and as such any
dispute arising out of such contract can only be agitated in a proper forum
and not by way of writ proceedings.
15
33. To illustrate some of the areas of dispute between the parties
concerned, the respondents has pointed a finger at the manner in which
the alleged supply order was procured, when the purpose was for
emergency relief to those who are affected by the flash flood which
occurred on 22.09.2014, including animals and poultry, however, such
supply order was issued only in the month of December, 2014 and
January, 2015 which is about 73 and 121 days respectively after the
disaster has occurred. This is contrary to what has been specified under
the relevant rules, particularly the provision of para 6(ii) of the State
Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) and National Disaster Response Fund
(NDRF) which pertains to provision of fodder/feed concentrate including
water supply and medicines in cattle camps, the petitioner having failed to
prove that the supply of such animal and poultry feed was made at the
relief camps set out for the purpose, when there is no evident as to whether
such relief camps have been set up or not in view of the varying stand of
the respondent No. 5 who has initially admitted that there was no relief
camps set up but had later on issued a clarification that such relief camps
have been set up.
34. The petitioner has also questioned the contradictory stand taken
by the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 as against the stand taken by the
respondents No. 2 and 5 respectively, wherein the officials at the State
level have questioned the manner in which the matter was handled by the
District Officer, that is the respondent No. 5 to say that he has no authority
to convene the said meeting dated 05.12.2014 and the approval of the three
firms/suppliers (including the petitioners) for supply of cattle and poultry
feed, the purchase amount being above 50,000/- was illegal and in
₹
16
violation of the relevant Government order which calls for issuance of
-.
tender for any work whose amount is above ₹ 50,000/
35. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Government cannot
speak in two contradictory voices and that the contents of the affidavit
filed by a Sr. Government Official, that is the respondent No. 5 herein
cannot be repudiated in court by the Government. In the case of Central
Warehousing Corporation (supra) at para 57
wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has also referred to para 14 of the Lloyd Electric and
Engineering Ltd. case, the same reads as follows:
We are of the considered view that it does not augur well
“57.
for the Union of India to speak in two contradictory voices. The
two departments of the Union of India cannot be permitted to take
stands which are diagonally opposite. We may gainfully refer to
the following observations made by a three-Judges Bench of this
Court in the case of Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited v.
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [(2016) 1 SCC 560]
“14. The State Government cannot speak in two voices.
Once the Cabinet takes a policy decision to extend its 2004
Industrial Policy in the matter of CST concession to the
eligible units beyond 31-3-2009, up to 31-3-2013, and the
Notification dated 29-5-2009, accordingly, having been
issued by the Department concerned viz. Department of
Industries, thereafter, the Excise and Taxation Department
cannot take a different stand. What is given by the right
hand cannot be taken by the left hand. The Government
shall speak only in one voice. It has only one policy. The
departments are to implement the government policy and
not their own policy.
”
36. As far as the stand of the petitioner on the issue of the two
contradictory voices of the State respondent, where the respondent No. 5
and 2 respectively have pleaded one version of the factual situation, that
17
is, in the manner in which the process of supply of the feed was carried
out by the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 speaking through the
Commissioner and Secretary Revenue Department, raising objections on
the said mode and manner carried out by the petitioners while supplying
the said feed, such contradictory stand not permissible to be taken in a
proceeding such as this, this Court would agree with such proposition and
the relevant authorities cited in this regard being valid, however, the fact
remains that now it would appear that the apparent contradictory stand
taken by the relevant respondents would only prove that there is a dispute
as far as the mode and manner in which the supply orders were issued
upon the petitioners, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners may have
actually supplied the materials as ordered.
37. Venturing to ignore such a situation repleted with disputed
question of facts would reduce this Court to a trial court wherein evidence
has to be looked into and appreciated, which is not a duty cast upon a
constitutional Court, considering the facts and circumstances of this
instant case. In this regard, the observations of a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Adarsh Saraswati Mahila Shiksha and Gramin Vikas
Samiti v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. in MC(WA) No. 16/2023 in W.A.
No. 22/2023, at para 7 of Judgment dated 19.07.2023, is found relevant to
the factual situation of this instant case, wherein it was observed as
follows:
7. For the wealth of reasons indicated in the order impugned,
“
the writ court held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed
as not maintainable. Indeed, notwithstanding the wide authority
available to a Constitutional Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution, there is an element of self-restraint that is
18
exercised. Since writ proceedings are decided on affidavit
evidence and on summary procedure, disputed questions of fact
which require proof are not entertained. In any event, at the end
of the day, the real grievance of the petitioner is that the
petitioner has been unfairly treated and has been deprived of the
profits that the petitioner was entitled to upon successful
completion of the work. Such grievance sounds in money and the
relief that the petitioner should pursue should be by way of a suit
for damages.
”
38. This Court having convinced itself that there appears to be
question of disputed facts to be looked into, the relevant authorities cited
in this regard may not be off the mark. In the case of Poona Hinda(supra)
Though, the
at para 24 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “…
jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in respect of 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 dispute as to
whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable
are disputed questions of facts
.”
39. In the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc.(supra) at para
that though there
69 of the same, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
is no bar to the maintainability of a writ petition in a contractual matter
where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim
is raised, however discretion is bestowed upon the High Court to refuse to
exercise such jurisdiction, when there are serious disputed questions of
fact and money claims arising out of contractual obligations are normally
not to be entertained, the fact being that there is proper forum for
, for example a civil court of competent
determination of the parties’ right
jurisdiction.
19
40. It is the considered opinion of this Court that the remedy for
redressal of the petitioners grievances seeking damages would only lie
’
with a civil court. To this extent, discounting the period spent in these
proceedings for which condonation is hereby accorded, the parties may
approach such forum, if so advised.
41. These petitions are found not maintainable, the same are hereby
dismissed.
42. The records produced by the Department before this Court are
hereby returned.
43. Petitions disposed of. No costs.
Judge
Meghalaya
26.04.2024
PS
“Tiprilynti – ”
20