STATE OF U. P. Vs. BHRIGUJI CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The High Court by the impugned order, did not grant reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. On the other hand, the reliefs sought for were negatived by the High Court, but the High Court gave direction to the appellants to make refund of proportionate amount of contract for the period from 1.4.1995 to 8.5.1995 to the respondent with interest @18% per annum and also damages @ 15% per annum.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the High Court was not justified in giving direction to refund, which was not at all sought for by the respondent in the writ petition; the High Court having negatived the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition, has exceeded its jurisdiction in making an order of refund of amount. He added that the High Court was also not right in ordering for refund of the amount without even verifying whether the entire amount of contract was deposited with the authorities and whether there was delay on account of the respondent or on account of the appellants in not allowing the respondent to carry on the contract work from 1.4.1995 to 8.5.1995. It was the further submission of the learned counsel that if a disputed question of fact did arise for consideration, in that event the remedy for the respondent was to go to a civil court.