RADHARAMAN ENTERPRISERS Vs. CUTTACK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Radharaman Enterprisers, a Proprietary concern, has approached this Court with the following prayer :

(2.) It is the petitioner's case that it supplied various articles as per the order placed by the opp. party Cuttack Municipal Corporation and it was delivered in phases and bills were also submitted on different dates for payment, even though some of the bills have been paid but against some the payment has been arbitrarily withheld. The details of some bills have been given in the writ petition. The petitioner asserts that it had made a representation to the Municipal Corporation, but it has gone unheeded, which is unfair on the part of the public bodies like the opp. party, hence the present writ petition with the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) A question was raised with regard to maintainability of the writ application. Sri G.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a writ petition for enforcement of a contractual right may be barred but this being a case for enforcement of a promise by the Municipal Authorities, the writ Court can entertain the application and direct payment. The learned counsel has tried to bring a distinction between a promise for payment and an application of payment, arising out of a contract. The learned counsel has referred to the decisions in M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1496, The Union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies etc., AIR 1968 SC 718 and M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 621, in support of his contention that a writ Court would entertain an application for effecting payment of the outstanding dues by citizen against a Public Body like Municipal Corporation. The decisions cited, have absolutely no application to the facts of the case nor does it relate to the point in issue. In Radhakrishna Agarwal and others's case (supra), the Apex Court held that after the State or its agents have entered into the field of ordinary contract, the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines rights and obligations of the parties inter se. No question arises of violation of Article 14 or of any other constitutional provision when the State or its agents, purporting to act within this field, perform any act. In this sphere, they can only claim rights conferred upon them by contract and are bound by the terms of the contract only unless some statute steps in and confers some special statutory power or obligation on the State in the contractual field which is a part of contract. It has further been held in the said decision that even in a case of contract before one entered into the field of contract, facts have to be investigated and found before the question of a violation of Article 14 could arise. If those facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence, the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily taking detailed evidence, involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.Case of M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) relates to and a consideration is made on the question of plea of waiver and as to whether such a plea raised for the first time in the writ petition and does not relate to a case akin to the present writ application for effecting payment on the supplies made. None of these cases lays down that when the State or its statutory authority purport to operate within the contractual field and the only grievance of the citizen would be that the contract between the parties is broken by the action complained of, the appropriate remedy is by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Rather, the decisions of the Apex Court are contrary to this proposition.