Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Fancy Rehabilitation Trust and its Managing Trustee, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking recovery of Rs.1,43,000/- from respondent no.3, a private limited company, for housekeeping services rendered under a contract. The trust had been engaged in rehabilitation of physically handicapped persons since 1974. The dispute arose when respondent no.3 discontinued part of the services in February 2003 but later gave a fresh contract in April 2004. The petitioners claimed that an amount of Rs.1,43,000/- remained unpaid from April 2004 to May 2006. Respondent no.3 disputed the claim, asserting that the amount was not due. The court noted that the claim was purely contractual and involved disputed questions of fact, which could not be resolved in writ proceedings. The court held that the petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy by way of a civil suit. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate civil remedies. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the claim.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Maintainability for Contractual Disputes - The petitioners, a trust and its trustee, sought recovery of Rs.1,43,000/- from a private company under a housekeeping contract. The court held that disputed questions of fact regarding the amount due cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of a civil suit. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for recovery of disputed contractual dues arising from a private contract between a trust and a private company.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue appropriate civil remedies. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available for enforcement of purely contractual claims involving disputed questions of fact
- alternative remedy of civil suit is available
- no fundamental right or public law element involved.
