Judgment:
ORDER
S.B. Sinha, CJ
1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 18-12-1996 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No.15028 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioner claimed for the following reliefs:
'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 3 in not making payment to the petitioner of the amount of Rs.78,800/- as directed by respondent No.2 through letter dated 2-4-1994 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 15% from December, 1993 and pass such other and further orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case'.
3. Before the learned single Judge, as also before us, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the competent authority meaning thereby the General Manager (Excise), having himself instructed the Depot Manager (Arrack) for releasing of a sum of Rs.78,800/- in terms of his letter dated 2-4-1994, the respondents herein could not have raised a contention for the first time in the writ petition that a certificate was falsely issued by the ADMin connivance of the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel the purported fraud alleged at the hands of the petitioner could not have been taken recourse to for the purpose of obtaining the relief to the writ petitioner in public law remedy having regard to the fact that prior thereto the principles of natural justice had not been complied with.
4. There cannot be any doubt that enforcement of the conditions of contract is not permissible in a writ proceeding. The petitioner claimed the refund of the said amount inter alia on the ground that the same arose out of a breach of contract. In a given case, a writ Court may direct payment of the amount despite a general bar to the effect that normally no money claim can be adjudicated upon in writ proceedings, when the concerned authorities make a clear admission in this regard.
5. The question before the learned single Judge, as also before us, is as to whether having regard to the averments made in the counter-affidavit by the respondents herein, the writ petition could have been allowed.
6. The answer to the aforementioned question must be rendered in negative.
7. The Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would consider the materials on record which are brought before it and would not proceed to ignore it simply on the ground that a purported admission as regards the alleged entitlement to the said amount has been accepted by the respondents inasmuch as thereafter a fraud has been detected. If the direction issued by the General Manager (Excise) was based on the certificate of the ADM, which according to the respondents was falsely procured, the entire edifice of the writ petition fails.
8. It is now a well-settled principle of law that no equitable relief can be granted where the party's hands are tainted. So far as the allegations of commission of fraud or fabrication of a false certificate is concerned the same may involve a disputed question of fact. Such a disputed question of fact can be adjudicated upon only in a properly constituted civil suit and not in any proceedings. In State of U.P. v. Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd., : AIR1996SC3515 , B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., speaking for the Bench held:
'15. In our opinion, the very remedy adopted by the respondent is misconceived. It is not entitled to any relief in these proceedings i.e., in the writ petition filed by it. The High Court appears to be right in not pronouncing upon any of the several contentions raised in the writ petition by both the parties and in merely reiterating the effect of the order of the Deputy Commissioner made under the proviso to Section 8D(1).
16. Firstly, the contract between the parties is a contract in the realm of private law. It is not a statutory contract. It is governed by the provisions of the Contract Act or, may be, also by certain provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. Any dispute relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a Contract cannot be agitated, and could not have been agitated, in a writ petition. That is a matter either for arbitration as provided by the contract or for civil Court, as the case may be. Whether any amount is due to the respondent from the appellant-Government under the contract and, if so, how much and the further question whether retention or refusal to pay any amount by the Government is justified, or not, are all matters which cannot be agitated in or adjudicated upon in a writ petition. The prayer in the writpetition viz., to restrain the Government from deducting particular amount from the writ petitioner's bill (s) was not a prayer which could be granted by the High Court under Article 226. Indeed, the High Court has not granted the said prayer.
17. Secondly, whether there has been a reduction in the statutory liability on account of a change in law within the meaning of sub-clause (4) of Clause 70 of the Contract is again not a matter to be agitated in the writ petition. That is again a matter relating to interpretation of a term of the contract and should be agitated before the arbitrator or the civil Court, as the case may be. If any amount is wrongly withheld by the Government, the remedy of the respondent is to raise a dispute as provided by the contract or to approach the civil Court, as the case may be, according to law. Similarly if the Government says that any over-payment has been made to the respondent, its remedy also is the same'.
9. I laving regard to the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the appellant herein. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.