ALASKA TECH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to have supplied spare parts during 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 to the Lucknow Nagar Nigam (the second respondent). According to the petitioners, their bills for 2008-09 was cleared in 2010, but the payments, for which bills were raised for the period 2009 to 2013, have not been made. According to the petitioners, a deduction of 22% has been made from the bills without justification. The relief which is sought in these proceedings is a mandamus to the respondents to make payment of an amount of Rs.1,34,71,670/- in respect of the spare parts allegedly supplied by the petitioners to the Central Works Shop of the second respondent during financial years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(2.) At the outset, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents to the maintainability of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) We are of the view that, in a matter of this nature which pertains to alleged non-payment of dues under a contract for supply of goods, it would neither be prudent nor judicious for this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to grant relief, which is in substance, is a prayer for a money decree. These matters, it must be emphasized, are not those relating to statutory contracts but are purely non-statutory contracts. Whether work has been satisfactorily performed, whether the rates which had been quoted are in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether the goods were of a quality as mandated, and above all, whether the claim is within limitation or otherwise, are issues which cannot appropriately be adjudicated upon under Article 226 of the Constitution.