AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, CJ
1) This Writ Appeal is against a judgment of the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with a demand made on behalf the State Government that the Writ Petitioner, who is admittedly a contractor, is liable to repay certain amounts.
2) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General.
3) The learned Single Judge has left it to the petitioner to make appropriate representation and have the issue sorted out before the 4th respondent. But, in the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent- the Superintending Engineer PWD, who is the higher authority had given an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was heard and Annexure A/3 decision has been taken. That being so, the petitioner has necessarily to seek remedies against the proposal for recovery, if he chooses to do so. We are told by the learned Additional Advocate General that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. Even otherwise, issues relating to the instant contract as noted above are not justiciable in writ jurisdiction.
4) In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed without prejudice to any other remedies that may be available to the petitioner, in accordance with law, in appropriate jurisdiction.