^l ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR W.P.NO. l"n^'/2005 P^titioner M/s Expert Aryan Security Sen/ices, A Proprietorship Firm through its Sote Proprietor Major (Retd.) Shyam Sundar Sharma, S/o Late Shri Sheo Narayan Singh, Aged about 48 yeare, Permanent R/o J-155, Manoj Vihar, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad - 201010, Dist. Ghaziabad (U.P.) Versys Respondente 1) South Eastem Coalfields Ltd. Through its Chief General Manager',, Kusmunda Area, Kusmunda, District-Korba (C.G.) ,^ \- 2) The Security Officer, South Eastem Coalfields Ltd., Kusmunda Area, Kusmunda, District - Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETmONUNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^l°^Irl fs;"'?'. .- - d0 sm A^ PETmONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRrr PETITION N0.1775 OF 2005 M/s. Exoert Arvan Securitv Services. Versus South Eastem Coalfields Ltd. & Another \3^ (Writ Petltion under Artide 226/227 of the Constnution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Anand Dadariya, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Koshv. Advocate forthe responderts. 1. 2. ORDER (Passed on this 08 dayof Decembsr, 2011) By this petltion, the peBtJoner s^ks a direcSon to the respondents to clear ail the recoveries/unauthorized deductions made from monthly bills of the petittoner, and also retesase payment pertaining to all extra duty bills pending wHh the respondents No.1 & 2. The total amoutrt due to petitioner is more than Rs. 19,39,089/- (Nineteen lakh, thirty nine thousand and eighty nine only) and the' same may be released wilhin prescribed time wlth intsrest. The case of the peUtioner is that the petitloner entered Into an agreement vuith the respondent Nu.1 to provide securily services to S.E.C.L. Kusmunda Area, District Korba, on 24.11.2003. Thereafter, it wasagain renewed. The respondenis began deducting monthly wage bills and also extra duty wage bills. Thus, this petitlon for recovery of the amount. as according to the petitioner amount is all admitted. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents dispute the amount. which was sought (o be paid to the petitbner on account of different heads as under: !a) extiaDutyWageBSI(May03-AugO'»-Rs.3,60.00W- . (b) ExtlsDutyWageB»l{Sep-Oct04)-Rs.2,04,S4^- ~ (Cf^ Acfeff Wage BIS forApril04-Rs.1,12,8(W- on accounfof Lafc Satrfia Elections deftoymant (d) AcKS Wage Blll for Januasy 05 - Rs. 1,60,16V- on adwwiafPanchayatEleoSons (C.G.). fei- AdcS Wage BSI far Januaiy 06 - Rs. 1,09,W7/- on account ofKusmunda Area Sntemsd exfra deftoyment 'j (¥: f9 (g) (f-) (i) w m (1) Atldl Waye Bill for January 05 - Rs. 649/- on accountof Kusmunda Af^s fntQfnoi sx&s clQDiQvn^QHt. Addi Wage Bill for January 05 - Rs. 53,758/- 011account ofKusmunda Aiea intemal exfra deployment. Add! Wage BiS for Dscsmbsr 04 - Rs. 1,33,987/- on account ofKusmunda Area intemai exfra ctepfoymenfc Arnount withMd without any valid ground - Rs. 1.42.469/- (Wage BSl Sep 04) ArriOUm Wffff/teiCM.feuiK-teO' ('nOt Cfea^ frum Wage Biii Of Dec2004-Rs. 1.87,000/- Amount withhelsffdeductsd (not ctea,ri from Wage Bil! of Jan2005-Rs. 1,50,000/- Total fwced recovwy/ deducVon on account of Group Insurance ! ES!C (over ffie period Sep. 03 - Feb 05) - Rs. 3,24,000/- Shri Dadariya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the amount are not in dispute. Thus, the writ petition is maintainable and a direction to that effect mav be issued aaainst the respondents. On the olher hand, Shri Koshv, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition amounts to suit Tor recoverv of money, as several items are disputed and there is no settled amount, as claimed bv the petitioner. Shri Koshy, further submits that it is well settled principles of law that for recovery of money, the petitioner may not invoke exira-ordinary jurisdiction of Ihis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of !ndia. Wlthout going into the merits of the case, on perusal of Ihe pleadings, it appears that Ihere is a disputed facts vwth regard to several issues, which cannot be settled by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The SuDreme CQurt in A'.r Abraha'n v. Stste of K9ra!a & Others observed as under: "3. Ttie Higti Court has flgtiffy come to the CQHCiUSiOH that thQ CSiSDUtB &©^/©9n the Daftl^s is of a cfifl; nafure wftfch nas to tse agitated in an appmpnate Torum. Whettier ffiere has been a bona ffcfe nwstaks QT no? in paying ffis excess amoCint to the appeliant and wheWier the appeliant is enWed to retain the sa/d amount of^ Rs •f,59,939.75 ornot, afs a!S raatteis which have to ue ctecfdeo' under cwu' iaw and fnese disputes cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Consfffuffon of India." (1999)93cc280 •10. In ASL Intematlonal Ltd. & Anottier v. Export Credit Guarantee Coipo'aVon of indla Ltd. & Ofte/s^ re'ied o" by the learned counse! for the petitioner, the Supreme Court held as under: "19. Therefore, it is clesv from the above snunaatfQn of !aw that rHQrs!v bscauss one of ffie pafties to Ihe iiUgauon ra'ises a cSspute m regard to the facts of the case. the court entertaining such petsSon underATSde 226 afthe Consfffuffon fe not aiways bouna' fo reiegate ffie oartles to a suit In the atiove case of Gunwant Kaur thss Court ersn went to Sse extent Qfho!c9ng ffiaf m a wm* peistiwi, if the facts tequlre, everi oral avktence can Ae taken. Ttiis cieariv shows ffiat in an apprapnate oase, the wntcourt has the fwfssscaon to emertain a wm pe6bon involving cf/sputec? qruesfforts of facf afld tftere /s no iaf^ har fnr anf&rtaminn A y/nf' rua,Httnn di/ipn ^ Ul.t/ arfl^I J»/t ^/»tl«ur*»Kft*«I«yt—»B**l y/V/u**</>t •Wt/t*'*. ffie sarne arises out of a conu'actuai oUiyaVon and/or invotves some <Ssptited quesSons offact 27. From the above dlscussion of ours, ffie foUaw'mg !egal princip'es smefge as to 3 maintainabiiity ofa writpetiSon: {a) In an apvopriate case, a writ petiSon as against a State or an instrumen^ity of a Sfate arising out of a cwiit'acituai cMigaSofi is malntalnable. (b) Merety feecause some disputed questtons of fsct arise for consktersSon, safne cannot tse a grouno' to refuse to enterteun a wnt peiMon In ai! cases as a matter ofrule. (c) Awritpetttton invoMng a consequenSal relief of !TK!nstap/daan ss s!so maintsinaS^e." In P.H. Murlldharan & Others v. Swam Dhafmananda Teertha PacSar & Gfho/?? _ fhe S!_inrem?a (...nurf nl^serveri fhat • , -«— <»—j-.—...— ——»..- ———-*• T^.——.— . "12. ....A persai could not approach the High CQUrt f€u' thff JOyfDOsSS Qf cte?5f??rn/ncf such disputeci questlons of fact whteh are beyond the scope and purport of the iurisdtotton of the High Courtwhile exwdsing wntju'iscScttQn as it 's afeo mvca'tecf detemsnation of cSsputed quesSons of fact.... 13. Furthennore the iurisdlctlon of the ciwl court fe w'sde and p'ena'y in a case offfiis naturs, a writ procewSng cannot be a suasatufe for a civii suif." !n Nobe! Reso'jrces Ud. v. Sfafe of Orissa & Offiefs , white making ths above position more clear, observed as under: ' (2004) 3 SCC 553 3(200614SCC501 4 (2006) 10SCC 236 F*"'7 •: -'^, d "18. It may, however, be true that where serious disputed quesSons of fact are raised fequlring appredaSon of ewdeiioe, and. Vius, for deterrninaSon thereof, exanwnaSon of wffnesses wouid hs n^^essap/^ ii n^av not bff conv^nf^nt IQ decto'e tiie dispute 'ili & pfOCseult'ig unuw Atvde 226 ofthe ConsStutton oflndia." 11. ln Kisan Sahkan Chmi Mills Llmited & Qthers v. Vafdan Unkefs & Offigr^ the Supreme Court held as under: "18. Ordinarily, the remedy available for a party cor"p!ain'ng of breach QfcQntrect !ys forseeking dainages. He Wiii be enuued to ihe reiief Oi specific pafonnance, ifthe contract is capaUe of besng specificaSy enfarcec? f" /a"/. The remedies for a 'weach of cpntraci ueing pureiy in ths feairn of contrsct are cS^alt with t>y cMI courts. The suhlsc !sw fSjTiQC?*/. hv wav of s wnt DQt!t!QH undBF Anicie 226 of tiie ConstltuSion of india, is not avallable to seek damacres for breach of contract or specitic ps'fwYfancQ of contract Howsver, whem the confractua» (Sspute has a puKfc iaw element, the pcwer of iucSclal review under Artic'-e 226 of ttse ConsWuffon af Sndia may be mvokecr." 12. In the instant case, as aforestated, all the facts are disputed and the proper course for recoverv of money, if any, would be a competent iurisdictional Civil Court. 13. In ABL Intemational Ltd. & Another (supra), the Supreme Court, while elaborating power ofthe High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, iaid down that the High Court. can ao into all the disoutes, even if i1 is reauired, oral evidence can also be taken. However. the said exereise may be done only in an appropriate case. If all Ihe cases, wherein, disputed auestion of facts are involved and entertained by the High Court in exereise of its jurisdiction, the well laid down procedure for determination of the disputes as provided under the Code of Civil Propeslwe and other retevant statutes would be irrelevant. Thus, in exceptionai circumstances, as has been held by the Supreme Court also in ABL Intematlonal Ltd. & Anottier, the writ jurisdiction may also be invoked. (2008)123cc500 "%.. , 'SSe. 1 •;.y"f- sIf 15. 16. b 14. In the case on hand, it is purely a contractual matter, wherein, the dispute with regard to the amount is vmt large on every heads. Thus, this writ petition is not maintainable. as observed by the Supreme Court in P.R. Murtidharan & Others, Nobel Resouices Ltd, & Kisan Satikari Chini Mills Limited & Otheis (supra). For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed, as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to teke recouree to appropriate forum that may be available under the provisions of law. No order asto costs. Sd/- sat"h K. Agnihotri Judge asliot