Court declines to adjudicate complex disputed monetary claims under writ jurisdiction, but mandates release of undisputed payments within two months with 9% interest.
In a significant judgment dated August 25, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, Lucknow) delivered a detailed verdict in a series of writ petitions filed by M/s Jaiswal Foods and other associated caterers against the State of Uttar Pradesh and its education authorities. The writ petitions revolved around the non-payment and disputed payments for food services supplied during government training programs under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan in the Bahraich district.
The petitioners, all caterers from the same family and village, claimed dues running into several crores of rupees for supplying meals across multiple training programs conducted in 15 blocks of Bahraich district during the years 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The amounts claimed by the petitioners were substantially higher than the figures admitted by the respondent authorities in official orders. The petitioners sought writ directions for the release of the full claimed amounts along with interest at 18% per annum, and also challenged the reduction of admitted dues by the Director of Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh.
The Court undertook a meticulous examination of the facts, including a tabular comparison of the amounts claimed by the petitioners, the admitted amounts by the respondents, and the amounts actually released following a detailed block-level verification during the pendency of the writ petitions. It was noted that while in some petitions the amounts released exceeded even the claimed dues, in two cases there remained a shortfall of Rs. 10,45,791 and Rs. 1,19,544 respectively, which were admitted liabilities but unpaid.
The Court emphasized the settled legal principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to resolve complex factual disputes involving monetary claims that require detailed evidence and trial. It referred to landmark Supreme Court precedents such as State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil, which hold that disputed contractual dues must be adjudicated through civil suits rather than writ petitions.
However, the Court acknowledged that admitted dues must be paid promptly and non-payment of such amounts amounts to arbitrary action warranting judicial intervention. It directed the respondents to release the admitted shortfall amounts within two months from the date of the order along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from January 15, 2025, until actual payment.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ prayer for quashing the order reducing admitted dues and for payment of the higher claimed amounts, stating these involved disputed factual questions requiring trial. The petitioners were relegated to civil courts with liberty to lead evidence, and were assured the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for exclusion of time spent in writ proceedings.
The judgment also observed the inconsistent and fluctuating claims made by the petitioners and the respondents at various stages, underscoring the complexity of the factual matrix. The Court declined to conduct a roving inquiry under writ jurisdiction and cautioned against unilateral assertions of “nil” liability by the respondents without reconciliation of their own admissions.
This verdict reaffirms the principle that while writ courts can enforce payment of undisputed government dues, they are not forums for settling contested contractual claims involving detailed factual disputes. It also highlights the judiciary’s inclination to balance prompt justice for admitted claims with procedural propriety by relegating complex disputes to trial courts.
Bottom Line:
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained for adjudication of disputed questions of fact, especially when the quantum of dues involves complex disputes requiring evidence, but admitted shortfalls must be paid with interest.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Constitution of India; Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963; Section 34, Code of Civil Procedure
This news report summarizes the key aspects of the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in the M/s Jaiswal Foods vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case, elucidating the Court’s rationale in balancing writ jurisdiction with the need for civil adjudication of disputed claims.
M/s Jaiswal Foods v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2967743
