JUDGMENT
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. This writ application has been filed by a Proprietorship Firm represented through its proprietress, inter alia, praying for issuance of a direction to the Opp. Party to hand-over two Bank Drafts i.e. the Draft for Rs. 4,70,613/- dated 7.7.2003 and another for Rs. 10,587/-dated 7.7.2003 drawn on the State Bank of India, Cuttack to the petitioner towards payment due to him for undertaking printing job of Text Books.
2. Admittedly, the Opp. Party-Director, Text Book Production and Marketing, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, invited tenders for printing of Text Books for Class-Ill to Class-VII. The petitioner, who carries on business of printing submitted tender along with several other Printers for the work of printing of the said Text Books. The rate offered by the petitioner was considered and the Opp. Party placed orders, with different printers, including the petitioner. After observing. all paraphernalia, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Opp. Party on 10th July, 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner was allotted the printing work in instalments. The case of the petitioner is that it sincerely and sacrosanctly completed the printing work allotted to it, and no complaint was ever made by the Opp. Party with regard to the standard of printing or with regard to any other breach of terms of the contract. After completion of the work, the petitioner submitted its bills and the said bills were partly cleared up and payment to the extent of 46% was made. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the Bank Drafts for payment of balance 54% of the Bills are ready, the Opp. Party for no rhyme or reason is not handing over the same to the petitioner for which the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court for redressal of its grievance.
3. After receiving notice, the Opp. Party has entered appearance and has filed a detailed counter affidavit admitting the factual backdrops to certain extent and explaining the reasons for non-disbursement of the balance 54% of the. petitioner’s bills. It is submitted by the Opp. Party that a Public Interest Litigation being W.P.(C) No. 2847 of 2002 was filed before this Court, inter alia, alleging duplicating of Text Books by the present petitioner and this being a serious allegation against the petitioner, it was considered proper to withhold the balance payment of the petitioner till disposal of the writ petition. It is also submitted that a complaint was made by M/s. J.A. Traders, Cuttack regarding irregular printing/short supply of Text Book formats by the petitioner. Allegations were also received regarding printing of Key Books by the petitioner contrary to the terms of the Agreement. According to the Opp. Party after receiving such allegations, a preliminary investigation was conducted which revealed that the petitioner had adopted pictorial imitation of several books. It also prima facie appeared that the petitioner had committed breach of the terms of the agreement by publishing Key Books though it was not authorised to do so. The Opp. Party thereafter, called upon the petitioner by his letter dated 24.8.2002 (Annexure-E/1) to show cause explaining the allegations levelled by the Ortssa Masters Printers’ Association and Others. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party forcefully submitted that in spite of receipt of Annexure-E/1, no explanation was submitted by the Petitioner till date.
4. Mr. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the other hand, submitted that as the notice calling for explanation as per Annexure-E/1 did not contain any enclosure, it was not possible for the petitioner to submit its explanation and the petitioner promptly replied by its letter dated 2.9.2002 and requested the opposite party to supply all the enclosures basing upon which the allegations were levelled so as to enable the petitioner to submit its reply. According to Mr. Lal, though such a letter was issued, the petitioner was not supplied copies of the said enclosures and therefore, the question of giving reply by the petitioner did not arise. The allegations, according to Mr. Lal, are blatantly false and frivolous having no basis.
5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and after perusing the averments made in the writ petition, counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit, we find that the agreement dated 10th July, 2002 was very specific and elaborate. Clauses of the said agreement clearly stipulated that the Printer would not on any account print more than the specifically ordered quantity by the Orissa Text Book Production and Marketing. In case the Printer was found to be in possession of extra unauthorized copies or is directly or indirectly responsible for unauthorized printing of copies of the said book by the other party, he would be liable for damages and forfeiture of the security deposits. Clause 11 of the agreement also stipulated that the Printer would treat the work entrusted by the Text Book Production & Marketing, strictly confidential and would not print or publish transactions, annotations, commentaries or guides in connection with the books or any part of the books. For breach of any of these conditions, the Printer would be liable to pay damages to be fixed by the Director of the Text Book Production & Marketing without prejudice to other legal rights available to the Text Book Production & Marketing.
6. According to Mr. Sarangi, teamed counsel for the Opp. Party, though the petitioner was entrusted with the work of printing 1000 copies of the Text Book, the allegations reveal that it printed or cross-printed several other copies and also printed Key Books thereby violating the terms of the Agreement. In such eventuality, the Opp. Party was justified in invoking their authority under Clause 11 of the Agreement.
7. Being confronted with the said argument, Mr. Lal, baldly denied all the allegations and submitted that the petitioner is an honest business organization and it did not commit breach of any of the terms of the Agreement. It completed the work in right earnest and all the allegations leveled against it are blatantly false and have been masterminded by some competitors.
8. The allegations and counter-allegations levelled inter se between the parties clearly reveal that disputed questions of facts are involved in the present case, which cannot be effectually adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction. Perusal of the Agreement entered into between the parties also reveals that a mechanism has been set up under the Agreement itself to decide all the disputes and differences arising out of the contract as would be evident from Clause 18, which reads as follows :
“All disputes and differences arising out or in any way touching or concerning this agreement whatsoever shall be referred to the Secretary, Department of School & Mass Education, Govt. of Orissa whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to the agreement.”
9. Rights of the parties in the present case, in fact, flow out of a contract. Law is well settled that contractual obligations, inter se between the parties, cannot be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction. That apart, the Agreement itself provides a forum where all disputes and differences arising out of the contract and/ or in any way touching or concerning the Agreement can be decided by an authority agreed to by all the parties.
10. In view of the aforesaid provision, we feel it would not be just and proper for us to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, we “dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the Opp. Party shall furnish all the documents relying upon which the show cause notice vide Annexure-E/1 was issued to the petitioner within two weeks from today. After receipt of the said enclosures/documents, it would be open for the petitioner to file its show cause within two weeks from the date of receipt of the said documents. The Opp. Party is directed to take a decision in the matter after conducting such enquiry as would be deemed just and proper and after giving full opportunity to the parties and following the principles of natural justice and equity within three weeks from the date of filing of the show cause of explanation. We have no doubt that if after enquiry the allegations levelled against the petitioner are found to be not correct, the authority shall disburse the balance amount, to the petitioner in consonance with the Bills. In the alternative, the opposite party shall take appropriate action as would be deemed just and proper in consonance with law and in terms of the Agreement. The Bank Drafts filed in Court be returned to the Opp. Party.
11. With the observation and directions aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.
12. I agree.
