Kerala High Court Clarifies Writ Jurisdiction Limited in Contractual Disputes Involving Genuine Questions of Fact

The Kerala High Court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., addressed the maintainability of a writ petition filed by a government contractor seeking various monetary and declaratory reliefs arising from a civil contract with Hindustan Prefab Ltd. The petitioner, having completed construction work for a government project, sought payment of outstanding dues, return of security deposit, reimbursement of GST, and other related reliefs, contending that delays were attributable to the respondents and not to himself.

The Court noted that the petitioner had previously approached the High Court with similar claims, resulting in a direction to the first respondent to consider and decide upon all claims after examining the relevant documents. The first respondent subsequently issued a detailed order rejecting the petitioner’s claims, providing reasons and supporting materials. The petitioner, however, did not challenge this order in the present writ petition, instead reiterating the same reliefs with only minor changes.

Upon examining the counter affidavit and supporting documents submitted by the respondents, the Court observed that the respondents had provided comprehensive explanations and evidence addressing each of the petitioner’s claims. The Court highlighted that the disputes raised—such as the cause of delay, responsibility for additional works, and entitlement to various payments—were deeply factual in nature and contested by both parties. The Court also noted that the petitioner had, in prior affidavits, admitted to certain delays and agreed to specific conditions for the continuation and completion of the work.

In its legal reasoning, the Court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court’s decision in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., clarifying that while writ jurisdiction is not automatically excluded in all contractual disputes, it is inappropriate where genuine and complex questions of fact are involved and where the respondents’ objections are supported by substantial materials. The Court emphasized that such disputes require adjudication through appropriate alternative remedies, such as civil proceedings, where evidence can be properly led and appreciated.

Ultimately, the Kerala High Court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable in light of the unresolved factual disputes and the absence of any challenge to the detailed order previously passed by the first respondent. The Court dismissed the writ petition, expressly leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue other remedies available under law for redressal of his grievances.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court reiterating the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in contractual matters involving genuine disputes of fact.