Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has held that dismissing a writ plea on the ground of alternative remedy after a delay of 10 years is not justified.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan observed, "Throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course."

Court also clarified that it is not an absolute rule that monetary claims cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction.

The court allowed appeals filed by M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors against the Orissa High Court's order of March 15, 2022, which disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant, by relegating the writ petitioner, i.e., the appellant to avail alternative remedy.

In the connected matter, the plea challenged the order of January 05, 2022, passed by the same High Court whereby the plea filed by the appellant was disposed of by relegating the appellant again to pursue its remedy before the authority.

The counsel for the appellant in both the appeals contended that the writ petitions were filed in year 2010, parties had exchanged their affidavits, and the matters were ripe for final disposal. However, in these circumstances, without even adverting to the facts borne out from the affidavits exchanged by the parties, there was no justification for the High Court to relegate the appellant to avail other remedies.

The court asked senior advocate K M Nataraj whether the parties had exchanged their affidavits in the course of the writ proceedings.

He stated that the parties had indeed exchanged their affidavits. However, he contended that writ petitions related to a money claim had become barred by time, therefore, writ petition were not maintainable.

"Be that as it may, the High Court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie," the bench said.

In this regard, the court cited Surya Constructions Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2019), Unitech Ltd and others Vs Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Others, (2021), Joshi Technologies International Inc Vs Union of India and Others, (2015).

"Further, throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence," the bench said.

In this regard, the court relied upon Dr Bal Krishna Agarwal Vs State of UP and others, (1995); Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd and another Vs Principal Secretary, Govt of UP & others, (2004).

In the instant matter, the bench said, the High Court, in the impugned orders, had not set out any factual foundation of the kind which could suggest that there were disputed questions of fact that necessitated recording of evidence.

"In these circumstances, we are of the view that the writ petition must be restored for fresh adjudication by the High Court. Consequently, we set aside the order of the High Court and restore the writ petition to its original number(s) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law," the bench said.

Case Title: M/s Utkal Highways Engineers And Contractors Vs Chief General Manager & Ors