AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hima Kohli, J.—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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.