# Karmesh Kumar Srivastava Prop. Venus Trading Corp v. City Development Secretary & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 734
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-17
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 15336 of 2018
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia, Vivek Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/karmesh-kumar-srivastava-prop-venus-trading-corp-v-city-development-secretary-52717
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

can be issued under Article 226 of the
Constitution directing payment of alleged dues
arising out of a pure contractual claim, when (i)
the respondents dispute the claim, and (ii) no
admitted amount is shown to exist.

Headnotes
Constitution
of
India
-
Art.
226
-
Maintainability
of
Writ
Petition
-
Contractual Matters - Disputed Questions
of Fact - Interpretation, implementation
and enforcement of contractual clauses
cannot be the subject-matter of a writ
petition - writ jurisdiction cannot be
invoked for recovery of money under a
non-statutory contract, particularly when
the amount is disputed - Contract Act,
1872 - Purely Private Law Contracts - No
Statutory Flavour - Contract with a
statutory body does not become statutory
merely because executed for public utility
- breach and enforcement of such contract
must
be
adjudicated
through
civil
remedies or arbitration (if provided) - Writ
of Mandamus - When Not Issuable - Writ
of mandamus for release of payments lies
10 All. Karmesh Kumar Srivastava Prop. Venus Trading Corp. Vs. City Development Secretary
 & Ors.
735
only
when
outstanding
amount
is
admitted
by
the
authority
-
not
maintainable when the claim is disputed,
not admitted or requires evidence - High
Court
Jurisdiction
-
Limitations
in
Contractual Matters - High Court not to
adjudicate on money claims requiring
evidence or factual proof - parties must be
relegated to civil suit/arbitration.

Held: There is no document establishing any
admitted amount payable to the petitioner - On
the contrary, the respondents have disputed the
claim and asserted that payment has already
been made - Writ remedy cannot be invoked for
a disputed contractual money claim - As held in
Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, interpretation of
contract and determination of payable amount
are not matters for writ jurisdiction - Where
complicated factual issues are involved, writ
petition must be dismissed - As reiterated in
Orissa
Agro
Industries
Corp.
v.
Bharati
Industries, writ court cannot adjudicate disputed
monetary claims or breach of contract issues -
Pure contractual disputes must go to civil
court/arbitration - Following Union of India v.
Puna Hinda, writ cannot be used to determine
whether any amount is payable when the claim
is disputed and no admission exists - Writ
jurisdiction is not the proper forum, except
where the liability is admitted - which is absent
here. (Paras - 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC
293; Orissa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. v.
Bharati Industries, (2005) 12 SCC 725; Union
of India v. Puna Hinda, (2021) 10 SCC 690;
M/s Bio Tech System v. State of U.P., (2020)
11 ADJ 488 (DB).

List of Acts
Constitution of India, Article 226; Indian
Contract Act, 1872

List of Keywords
writ of mandamus; admitted amount;
contractual matters; disputed questions of fact;
statutory contract; pure contractual matters;
civil suit; arbitration; non-statutory character;
outstanding payments; overhead tank; work
order.
Case Arising From
Petitioner's challenge to the non-release of the
payment for the work executed pursuant to the
Work Order dated 23.12.2011 issued by
Respondent No.4, for which the petitioner
sought a writ of mandamus directing release of
the claimed amount with interest.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava
Advs. for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Pranjal Mehrotra

## Text

734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disentitle him from the benefit of the
Scheme.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is
directed to submit a fresh comprehensive
application/ representation along with the
entire document declaring her husband as a
farmer so that a such decision may be taken
by the authority concerned in respect of exgratia payment given to a Krishak under the
Scheme.

8. After perusing the entire record, the
District Magistrate should obtain a fresh
report keeping in mind sub-clause (2) of
paragraph no. 2 of the Government Order
dated 28.02.2020 by which the State
Government has introduced the welfare
scheme title 'Mukhya Mantri Krishak
Durghatana Kalyan Yojana' and ascertain
as to whether the petitioner was the
breadwinner member of the family of the
tenure holder and whether the source of
income of the deceased was agriculture
work or not. Thereafter, proper opportunity
of hearing should be granted to the
petitioner for claiming the benefit under the
Scheme and thereafter pass a reasoned and
speaking order.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 29.03.2023 passed by the respondent
no. 2, District Magistrate, Azamgarh, is
quashed and set aside with a direction to
the District Magistrate to consider the
claim of the petitioner after providing
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
preferably within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.

10. With the above direction, the writ
petition is allowed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 734
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.

Writ C No. 15336 of 2018

Karmesh Kumar Srivastava Prop. Venus
Trading Corp. ...Petitioner
Versus
City Development Secretary & Ors.
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sudhir Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to Whether a writ of mandamus
can be issued under Article 226 of the
Constitution directing payment of alleged dues
arising out of a pure contractual claim, when (i)
the respondents dispute the claim, and (ii) no
admitted amount is shown to exist.

Headnotes
Constitution
of
India
-
Art.
226
-
Maintainability
of
Writ
Petition
-
Contractual Matters - Disputed Questions
of Fact - Interpretation, implementation
and enforcement of contractual clauses
cannot be the subject-matter of a writ
petition - writ jurisdiction cannot be
invoked for recovery of money under a
non-statutory contract, particularly when
the amount is disputed - Contract Act,
1872 - Purely Private Law Contracts - No
Statutory Flavour - Contract with a
statutory body does not become statutory
merely because executed for public utility
- breach and enforcement of such contract
must
be
adjudicated
through
civil
remedies or arbitration (if provided) - Writ
of Mandamus - When Not Issuable - Writ
of mandamus for release of payments lies
10 All. Karmesh Kumar Srivastava Prop. Venus Trading Corp. Vs. City Development Secretary
 & Ors.
735
only
when
outstanding
amount
is
admitted
by
the
authority
-
not
maintainable when the claim is disputed,
not admitted or requires evidence - High
Court
Jurisdiction
-
Limitations
in
Contractual Matters - High Court not to
adjudicate on money claims requiring
evidence or factual proof - parties must be
relegated to civil suit/arbitration.

Held: There is no document establishing any
admitted amount payable to the petitioner - On
the contrary, the respondents have disputed the
claim and asserted that payment has already
been made - Writ remedy cannot be invoked for
a disputed contractual money claim - As held in
Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, interpretation of
contract and determination of payable amount
are not matters for writ jurisdiction - Where
complicated factual issues are involved, writ
petition must be dismissed - As reiterated in
Orissa
Agro
Industries
Corp.
v.
Bharati
Industries, writ court cannot adjudicate disputed
monetary claims or breach of contract issues -
Pure contractual disputes must go to civil
court/arbitration - Following Union of India v.
Puna Hinda, writ cannot be used to determine
whether any amount is payable when the claim
is disputed and no admission exists - Writ
jurisdiction is not the proper forum, except
where the liability is admitted - which is absent
here. (Paras - 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC
293; Orissa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. v.
Bharati Industries, (2005) 12 SCC 725; Union
of India v. Puna Hinda, (2021) 10 SCC 690;
M/s Bio Tech System v. State of U.P., (2020)
11 ADJ 488 (DB).

List of Acts
Constitution of India, Article 226; Indian
Contract Act, 1872

List of Keywords
writ of mandamus; admitted amount;
contractual matters; disputed questions of fact;
statutory contract; pure contractual matters;
civil suit; arbitration; non-statutory character;
outstanding payments; overhead tank; work
order.
Case Arising From
Petitioner's challenge to the non-release of the
payment for the work executed pursuant to the
Work Order dated 23.12.2011 issued by
Respondent No.4, for which the petitioner
sought a writ of mandamus directing release of
the claimed amount with interest.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava
Advs. for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Pranjal Mehrotra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Saran, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Pranjal
Mehrotra,
learned
counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 to
5, learned Standing Counsel for respondent
nos.1 and 6 and perused the records.

2. The aforesaid writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner with the following
relief:-

"To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent no.4 to release
the amount of the work carried out by the
erstwhile
firm
of
the
petitioner
in
pursuance of the work order dated
23.12.2011 by the respondent no.4 with
interest."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was allocated the
work
vide
official
letter
no.22(A)/Kanp/UPRNN/Suda
Unit1/Kanpur dated 23.12.2011 to construct the
overhead tank in the Malin Basti of
Madarpur and Zanna according to terms
and
conditions
of
the
respondent
corporation. It is further submitted that
apart from the said work, the petitioner also
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
constructed C.C. Road 700X3 meters and
spread sewer pipeline upto 1500 meters at
Rooma, constructed 60 sewer chambers
also at Rooma and also completed the top
dome of 320 K.L. of overhead tank at
Madarpur and 250 K.L. of overhead at
Zona and the respondent Nigam paid for
the work of C.C. Road and sewer
chambers. However, the balance amount as
claimed by the petitioner was not paid.

4. Per contra Sri Pranjal Mehrotra,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent nos.2 to 5 submitted that there
is no admitted amount to be paid by the
respondent Nigam and in fact the petitioner
has not produced any document in support
his statement and no one from the Nigam
had assured the petitioner that the claimed
amount would be paid to him. He further
submits that all the payments with regards
to the work done by the petitioner has
already been paid and and relies upon para
no.15 of the counter affidavit which reads
as under:-

"That the allegations made in
paragraph no.8 of the writ petition are
distorted, misconceived, wrong and the
same are vehemently denied. In reply, it is
respectfully submitted that all the payments
in regard to the work done by the petitioner
is already paid vide Cash Voucher No.1412
dated 04.02.2012 and Cheque No. 754959
dated 04.02.2012 of Rs. 3,53,750. Copy of
the Cash Voucher and Bill Form is being
filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.
C.A.-1 to this Affidavit."

5. After going through the writ
petition, we find that there is no document
on record to establish that any specific
amount was admitted to be paid by the
respondents to the petitioner. On the
contrary
in
various
communications
annexed with the petition, the respondents
have demanded copy of work orders etc. on
which petitioner claims to have worked for
the respondents. Evidently the claim of the
petitioner is disputed by the respondents.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of
Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil
reported in (2000) 6 SCC 293 has held that
writ court is not the proper forum for
resolution
of
disputes
in
contractual
matters.
The
relevant
paragraph
is
delineated below:

"10. We find that there is a merit
in the first contention of Mr Raval. Learned
counsel
has
rightly
questioned
the
maintainability of the writ petition. The
interpretation and implementation of a
clause in a contract cannot be the subjectmatter of a writ petition. Whether the
contract envisages actual payment or not is
a question of construction of contract. If a
term of a contract is violated, ordinarily
the remedy is not the writ petition under
Article 226. We are also unable to agree
with the observations of the High Court
that
the
contractor
was
seeking
enforcement of a statutory contract. A
contract would not become statutory simply
because it is for construction of a public
utility and it has been awarded by a
statutory body. We are also unable to agree
with the observation of the High Court that
since the obligations imposed by the
contract on the contracting parties come
within the purview of the Contract Act, that
would not make the contract statutory.
Clearly, the High Court fell into an error in
coming to the conclusion that the contract
in question was statutory in nature."

7. The Supreme Court in the case of
Orissa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. v.
Bharati Industries reported in (2005) 12
10 All. Karmesh Kumar Srivastava Prop. Venus Trading Corp. Vs. City Development Secretary
 & Ors.
737
SCC 725 dealt with the maintainabilty of a
petition under Article 226 specifically on
disputed questions of fact involved in
contractual
matters.
The
relevant
paragraphs are delineated below:

"7. A bare perusal of the High
Court's judgment shows that there was
clear non-application of mind. On one
hand the High Court observed that the
disputed questions cannot be gone into a
writ petition. It was also noticed that the
essence of the dispute was breach of
contract. After coming to the above
conclusions the High Court should have
dismissed the writ petition. Surprisingly,
the High Court proceeded to examine the
case solely on the writ petitioner's
assertion and on a very curious reasoning
that though the appellant Corporation
claimed that the value of articles lifted was
nearly Rs 14.90 lakhs no details were
specifically given. From the counteraffidavit filed before the High Court it is
crystal-clear that relevant details disputing
claim of the writ petitioner were given.
Value of articles lifted by the writ petitioner
is a disputed factual question. Where a
complicated question of fact is involved
and the matter requires thorough proof on
factual aspects, the High Court should not
entertain the writ petition. Whether or not
the High Court should exercise jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution would
largely depend upon the nature of dispute
and if the dispute cannot be resolved
without going into the factual controversy,
the High Court should not entertain the
writ petition. As noted above, the writ
petition
was
primarily
founded
on
allegation of breach of contract. Question
whether the action of the opposite party in
the writ petition amounted to breach of
contractual obligation ultimately depends
on facts and would require material
evidence to be scrutinised and in such a
case writ jurisdiction should not be
exercised.

***

9. In the instant case the High
Court has itself observed that disputed
questions of fact were involved and yet
went on to give directions as if it was
adjudicating the money claim in a suit. The
course is clearly impermissible.

8. The Supreme Court in a recent case
of Union of India v. Puna Hinda
reported in (2021) 10 SCC 690 has further
held that the jurisdiction of High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is wide, but pure contractual matters
in field of private law, having no statutory
flavour, are better adjudicated upon by
forum agreed to by parties. Dispute could
not be raised by way of a writ petition on
disputed question of facts. The relevant
paragraphs are delineated below:

"24. Therefore, the dispute could
not be raised by way of a writ petition on
the disputed questions of fact. Though, the
jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in
respect of pure contractual matters in the
field of private law, having no statutory
flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the
forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute
as to whether the amount is payable or not
and/or how much amount is payable are
disputed questions of facts. There is no
admission on the part of the appellants to
infer that the amount stands crystallised.
Therefore,
in
the
absence
of
any
acceptance of joint survey report by the
competent authority, no right would accrue
to the writ petitioner only because
measurements cannot be undertaken after
passage of time. Maybe, the resurvey
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cannot take place but the measurement
books of the work executed from time to
time would form a reasonable basis for
assessing the amount due and payable to
the writ petitioner, but such process could
be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e.
arbitration and not by the writ court as it
does not have the expertise in respect of
measurements or construction of roads.

25. A perusal of the matter shows
that collusion of some of the officers of the
appellants with the contractor cannot be
ruled out. Such collusion seems to be the
basis of the writ petition filed before the
High Court."

9. The coordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of M/S Bio Tech System v.
State Of U.P. and Others reported in
(2020) 11 ADJ 488DB has emphasised the
limited power of the writ court exercising
obligation in contractual matters . The
relevant paragraphs are delineated below:

"39. The general principles which
may be culled out from the aforementioned
judgments is that in a case where the
contract entered into between the State and
the person aggrieved is of a non-statutory
character and the relationship is governed
purely in terms of a contract between the
parties, in such situations the contractual
obligations are matters of private law and
a writ would not lie to enforce a civil
liability arising purely out of a contract.
The proper remedy in such cases would be
to file a civil suit for claiming damages,
injunctions or specific performance or such
appropriate reliefs in a civil court. Pure
contractual obligation in the absence of
any statutory complexion would not be
enforceable through a writ.

40. The remedy under Article 226
of the Constitution being an extraordinary
remedy, it is not intended to be used for the
purpose of declaring private rights of the
parties. In the case of enforcement of
contractual rights and liabilities the normal
remedy of filing a civil suit being available
to the aggrieved party, this Court may not
exercise its prerogative writ jurisdiction to
enforce such contractual obligations."

10. In the present factual matrix, the
petitioner has not been able to bring on
record
any
document
wherein
the
respondent authorities have admitted that a
particular sum is owed to them. On the
contrary, the respondents have disputed the
claim of the petitioner in their counter
affidavit. It has to be kept in mind that
when disputed questions of fact are present,
the writ jurisdiction is not the viable forum,
as such disputes cannot be decided upon
bare exchange of affidavits. As clearly
enunciated in the judgments cited above, in
areas of contractual disputes, parties have
to approach the civil courts or go for
arbitration (if provided for). The writ court
would only in exceptional circumstances,
when
the
outstanding
payments
are
admitted by the respondents, enter into the
arena and pass a writ of mandamus and in
no other case.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.

12. No order as to cost.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 738
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No. 26529 of 2025

Ramashankar Yadav And Anr. ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents