BUDH GRAMIN SANSTHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to have executed various work orders which were issued under the National Rural Health Mission, between 10 January, 2013 to 17 February, 2014. According to the petitioners, the work orders were allotted by the second, third and fourth respondents and payments were sanctioned after satisfactory completion of work. Thereafter, it is alleged that cheques were issued but were not honoured as payment was stopped by the drawers. The petitioners have, thereafter, submitted a representation. Eventually, the writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to clear the cheques in the total amount of Rs. 13,35,983/- after withdrawing the stop payment order and for payment of interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum. On 18 April, 2014, we directed the learned Standing Counsel to take instructions as to why the stop payment order had been issued by the department. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel has placed on the record, the instructions received by him on 26 April, 2014 from the Chief Medical Officer, Siddharthnagar. The instructions reveal that certain irregularities were detected in the disbursement of funds under the National Rural Health Mission. This was brought to the notice of the District Health Committee presided over by the Collector, Siddharthnagar, in pursuance of which an Inquiry Committee has been constituted and, in the meantime, directions were issued for stopping the payments. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, it has been stated that on 5 April, 2014, a First Information Report was lodged against the proprietor of petitioners by the Superintendent, Community Health Centre, Dumariaganj, Siddharthnagar. In the FIR, it has been alleged that the proprietor of the petitioners had, on 29 March, 2014, together with 8 to 10 accomplishes, visited the Community Health Centre and obtained cheques from the Superintendent under coercion and duress and threatened him of dire consequences.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that on the one hand, a First Information Report was lodged on 6 April, 2014, and on the other hand, a certificate of satisfactory completion of work was issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Siddharthnagar on 19 April, 2014.

(3.) In view of the defence which has been set up by the State, it would not be appropriate, in our view, to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass an order, that would essentially be a money decree. At the least, the defence would raise issues on which evidence would have to be adduced before a Civil Court. Quite independently of that, in a matter of this nature, remedies are available either in the form of a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or in the form a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888. The High Court must exercise a great deal of circumspection in granting relief of the nature sought, particularly when facts are brought to the notice of the Court which indicate that the State seeks to establish a defence on facts.