TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it had already been expressed by the Division Bench in the earlier proceedings that disputed questions of facts which were raised before the Court, could not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. It would be inappropriate for the Court to determine the wholly disputed questions of fact which arise in the present proceedings - petition dismissed. - Misc. Bench No. 3861 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 8-5-2014 - Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and D.K. Upadhyay, JJ. For Appellant: Laltaprasad Misra and Abhishek Singh For Respondents: C.S.C., Anand Kumar Singh JUDGMENT 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 responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all, whether the claim is within limitation or otherwise, are issues which cannot appropriately be adjudicated upon under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Increasingly, in cases like the one in hand, instead of taking recourse to the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Court under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, recourse is taken to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. That is not permissible. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is intended to provide the ordinary civil remedy for the adjudication of such claims. As a matter of fact, we also indicated to the learned Counsel that even within the purview of the Civil Procedure Code, provisions such as those under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. contain an adequate sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay an amount of ` 1,34,71,670/- alongwith interest @ 18 per cent as outstanding dues for contractual work. According to Shri H.G.S. Parihar learned Senior Counsel, petitioner had supplied spare parts but in spite of satisfactory supply, payment to the tune of ` 1,34,71,670/- has not been paid to the petitioner. Attention has been invited towards para 8 of the counter-affidavit in which it has been stated that outstanding dues is to the tune of ` 1,20,00,000/-. However, Shri S.S. Chauhan learned Counsel for the Nagar Nigam while defending the action of Nagar Nigam invited attention towards para 14 of the counter-affidavit wherein it has been specifically pleaded that enquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have now relied upon the last sentence contained in the order of the Division Bench by which the Court clarified that this would not preclude the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum or authority concerned. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Municipal Commissioner of the Nagar Nigam on 3 January, 2014. On the basis of certain queries which had been replied under the Right to Information Act, it is now submitted that a second writ petition would be maintainable. 8. We are categorically of the view that a second writ petition would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court since it had already been expressed by the Division Bench in the earlier proceedings that disputed questions of facts which were raised befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned in both the matters are set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court to adjudicate upon the issues and dispose it of, as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the High Court, after calling the Inquiry Report and examining the other material on record. Needless to say that the parties are at liberty to raise all factual and legal issues before the High Court. Both these appeals stand disposed of accordingly. 11. The Division Bench having entertained the petition which had been filed by another petitioner, that exercise was corrected by the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the proceedings for adjudication up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
