Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Akhil Bharat Krishi Go Seva Sangh, a registered charitable trust running Gaushalas and Panjrapole, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that it had complied with all requirements under a Government Resolution (GR) dated 25 January 2019 and orders of the Collector, Nashik, for conducting fodder feeding camps at four villages in Malegaon taluka. The petitioner claimed entitlement to grants at Rs. 50 per day per small animal and Rs. 100 per day per big animal for the period June-July 2019, amounting to Rs. 1,19,35,750/- after deducting amounts already received. The petitioner alleged that despite repeated requests, the respondents had not released the balance amount and had issued a letter dated 24 June 2021 rejecting the claim. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, contended that there were seriously disputed questions of fact, including whether the camps were conducted under the government scheme, compliance with conditions, and the accuracy of animal counts. They argued that the undisputed amount of Rs. 1,27,89,493/- had already been paid, and the balance claim was inflated and unsupported. The court, after perusing the voluminous documents filed by the petitioner, observed that the petition resembled a civil suit or arbitration claim, involving disputed facts that could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of a civil suit where evidence could be led. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the claim.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed Questions of Fact - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for payment of grants under a government scheme for fodder camps. The court held that the petition involved seriously disputed questions of fact regarding compliance with scheme conditions, animal counts, and amounts payable, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The court dismissed the petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue a civil suit or other appropriate remedy. (Paras 13-18) B) Contractual Obligations - State's Duty to Act Fairly - Unitech Limited v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, (2021) 16 SCC 35 and ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553 - The petitioner relied on these cases to argue that the State must act fairly even in contractual matters. However, the court distinguished them, noting that those cases did not involve seriously disputed questions of fact as in the present case. (Paras 8, 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to pay grants for fodder feeding camps when there are serious disputes regarding compliance with scheme conditions and the amount claimed.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not suitable for disputed questions of fact
- Alternative remedy of civil suit available
- State's obligation to act fairly in contractual matters
- Scope of mandamus for payment of money
