Sri Swaminathan Constructions, A Registered Firm vs The Divisional Engineer, The Superintending Engineer and The Chief Engineer

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The petitioner, who submitted a tender for re-construction of a bridge at Kms. 5/6, Sembanarkoil - Nallodai Road

across the Kadaladi river within the jurisdiction of the second respondent, was entrusted with the above-said contract by the respondents herein

under an agreement dated 21.12.1999. The value of the contract as per the said agreement dated 21.12.1999 is Rs.92,13,377/- and the petitioner

was expected to complete the work on or before 20.9.2000.

Concedingly, the petitioner-contractor completed the work in all respects on 25.2.2001, raised a final bill for a sum of Rs.6,17,374/- and also

requested for refund of the security deposit, viz., a sum of Rs.1,38,268/-. As the said dues were not settled, the petitioner has preferred the above

writ petition seeking the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner all amounts due including the final bill and

security deposit.

Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, placing reliance on the averments stated in the

paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, has fairly stated that the final bill due to the petitioner-contractor would be

paid soon after the approval of the revised administrative sanction proposals by the Government. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, the

respondents have stated that the final payment of the work could be made to the petitioner-contractor only after the approval of the revised

administrative sanction proposals by the Government. Therefore, the liability of the respondents to settle the final dues to the petitioner-contractor

is not disputed at all.

Normally, it may not be proper for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters of contractual

liabilities, as the Court is expected to act in accordance with certain self-imposed restrictions.

It is a trait law that no writ would be issued in respect of the rights flowing under non-statutory contracts. However, if the action of the State is

challenged on the ground of unreasonableness, unfairness and as one being against the public interest, it can be subjected to judicial review, which

could be tested on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But in the absence of disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication,

on detailed evidence, and when the claim made by one remains uncontested by another, as in the instant case, the Court is entitled to exercise its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even in a matter of non-statutory contract in order to strike out injustice and to reach

justice, of course, subject to the self-imposed restrictions, as held by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in STATE OF KERALA V.

T.N.ANIL reported in 2002 (3) CTC 449 following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in:

(i) Air India Statutory Corporation, etc. Vs. United Labour Union and others [overruled], :

(ii) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Dolly Das, : and

(iii) Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs. Smt. Asha Goel and Another, .

Hence, applying the ratio laid down in the above canon of judgments, I am obliged to direct the respondents to get necessary orders from the

Government for the revised administrative sanction to settle the dues to the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.