Karan Singh vs Union of India And 2 Others

Dilip Gupta and Mukhtar Ahmad, JJ. - The petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement with the respondents for installing a mobile tower on his agricultural land. According to the petitioner the rent that was agreed upon was Rs.2900/- per month but only Rs.25,00/- has been paid by the respondents.

This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the arrears of rent.

Sri Subodh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the rent has been paid to the petitioner in accordance with terms of the agreement.

The petitioner basically seeks enforcement of an agreement. It will not be appropriate for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain such a plea.

In a similar case, M/s R.S. Associate v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 24 February 2014 a Division Bench of this Court had declined to entertain a prayer for similar reliefs with the following observations:

"These are purely contractual matters and we are not inclined to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this regard. Whether the work under the contract has been satisfactorily carried out; whether the rates quoted are in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the applicable schedule of rates; whether the work has been carried out properly are issues which have to be addressed, among other questions, by the competent authority before an appropriate decision is taken. The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot appropriately be exercised in such matters. The remedy of the contractor, if he is aggrieved by non payment, would be to either file an ordinary civil suit or if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, to invoke the terms of the agreement.

............It is true that there is no absolute bar in entertaining a petition in a contractual matter. However, in cases such as the present, several issues on facts which have been noted in the earlier part of this judgement have to be determined by the competent authority. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is not warranted for what the petitioner seeks in essence is a decree in a civil suit which cannot be granted in this proceeding, particularly having regard to the nature of the issues involved.

The Court, therefore, declines to entertain this petition."

Following the earlier view of the Division Bench and for the reasons indicated above, we decline to entertain the petition and relegate the petitioner to pursue the ordinary civil remedy or, if there is an arbitration agreement, to invoke the terms of the agreement.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.