ORDER
B.L. Bhat, J.
1. Through the medium of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought Indulgence of this Court for issuance of mandamus of commanding the respondents to evaluate, consider and settle down the claim of the petitioner in respect of releasing/paying him an amount of Rs. 1,14,289/-due to be paid to him; any other relief the court may grant, has also been sought in usual manner.
2. Precisely stating the case of the petitioner is that he is the sole proprietor of the business concern that is to say Namrah Trading Corporation and has been carrying business of making supplies to the departments of the Jammu and Kashmir Government under the name and style of the business concern; that pursuant to the supplies orders, the petitioner-firm came to supply goods/accessories of various electric gadgets in the office of Executive Engineer (respondent-4), which were duly acknowledged by the office of said respondent and after finding the same in order and according to specifications prescribed, the goods were accepted and utilized; that the said supplies were worth the tune of Rs. 1,14,289/- but the respondents have not paid the said amount to the petitioner till date when all the supplies in question came to be made in the month of October, 1997; that the petitioner approached respondents for the release of amount but till today, the same has not been released.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that, this writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court on 22-11-2001 with the following directions :
“i) that the respondents would consider the claims of the petitioner.
ii) that the payment of the undisputed and admitted amount be made.
iii) that in case payment is not to be made and claims of the petitioner are to be rejected then a speaking order be passed.
iv) that the State would deduct that much amount which the petitioner would have paid by way of Court-fee had he filed a civil suit.
Let the directions given above be complied with within a period of three months from the date copy of the order passed by this Court is made available by the petitioner to the respondent-authorities and also to their counsel. It is made clear that in case payment is not made and ultimately it is found that some thing was due then the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12%. Interest component would be payable by the person on whose account delay occurs.
Disposed of as such.”
4. This order came to be challenged by respondent-4 before the LPA Bench of this Court in appeal, which came to be disposed of with the following orders :
“In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner (respondents herein), we dispose of the appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge to hear afresh. The respondents in the writ petition shall file objections within four weeks from today and registry is directed to list the writ petition before learned single Judge immediately after four weeks.
The appeal is disposed of in the terms indicated above.”
5. Pursuant to the direction of the learned LPA Bench, the respondent-4 has filed objections wherein he has inter alia assailed the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petition involves question of facts, which as such cannot be agitated by way of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court and that the present writ petition does not involve infringement of any fundamental right of the petitioner. It is further stated by the respondent-4 that no such record evidencing the supplies made by the petitioner is available and the record which has been placed by the petitioner on the record of this case, cannot be relied upon for making payment of the items alleged to be supplied by the petitioner and that the documents which have been made available by the petitioner, cannot be relied upon because of the fact that the said documents have not been signed/authenticated by the then Executive Engineer which under procedure is mandatory and cannot be made basis for making payment to the petitioner.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Article 226 confers on High Courts very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs with the condition to exercise these powers within the territories subject to their jurisdiction and that the person or the authority to whom the writs are issued must be amenable to its jurisdiction cither by residence or location within those territories except where the cause of action arises in whole or in part within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court. Though the High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have unfettered powers for the issuance of the writs and directions but these powers are circumscribed to the effect that these powers shall not be exercised arbitrarily and also subject to certain self-imposed limitations which are; that it should not act as Court of Appeal or revision to correct mere errors of law or of fact; that it is not intended as an alternate remedy for the relief sought by way of suit or other mode prescribed by a statute i.e. where it is open to the aggrieved to move to another tribunal, authority, Court, it will not entertain a petition under Article 226 permit machinery created by the statute be bye passed that it will not enter upon determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce for which the writ is claimed and that it will not interfere with determination made by an authority invested with statutory powers particularly when related to the matters of expertise unless there are exceptional circumstances calling for judicial intervention i.e. determination is mala fide or prompted by extraneous consideration or made in contravention of the principles of natural justice and constitutional provision.
8. Having regard to the above discussed law, in the present matter there are disputed facts of supply of goods. Unless the pleadings raised by the parties are examined by an appropriate forum, appropriate decision cannot be taken and such a course is impossible in writ proceedings, which are summary in nature (See 2000 (9) SCC 745).
9. Viewed thus, the petition in hand is not sustainable and the same is dismissed at the admission stage.
