Court advises petitioner to seek remedies through civil suits or arbitration due to disputed questions of fact
The Allahabad High Court, on July 31, 2026, dismissed a writ petition filed by Kalyan Health Care Products Pharmaceuticals Co-Operative Society Limited, seeking the recovery of contractual dues from the State of Uttar Pradesh. The bench, comprising Justices J.J. Munir and Indrajeet Shukla, ruled that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable for resolving complex and disputed questions of fact, such as those involved in the petitioner's claim for payment for the supply of Ayush Medicines.
The petitioner argued that their contractual dues were unjustly denied despite fulfilling the supply order, and sought a writ of mandamus for payment of the bills with 18% interest. The court, however, observed that the issues involved, such as compliance with procurement policy, the quality of goods supplied, and alleged financial irregularities, required a detailed examination of facts, which is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction.
The court emphasized that disputes involving non-statutory contracts and contested facts should be resolved through appropriate civil suits or arbitration, where oral and documentary evidence can be fully considered. The judgment noted that the petitioner's firm was not listed among the recognized pharmaceutical suppliers and pointed to discrepancies in the petitioner's address, as well as allegations of sub-standard goods and procurement policy violations.
The court also referenced previous judgments, including M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors Vs. Chief General Manager, where it was held that writ petitions should not be used to enforce contractual obligations without clear statutory or constitutional rights involved.
In conclusion, the court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, advising the petitioner to pursue remedies in civil courts or other statutory forums. The decision underscores the judiciary's stance on maintaining the separation between writ jurisdiction and civil dispute resolution, reinforcing the need for parties to seek appropriate legal channels for contractual disputes.
Bottom Line :
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking recovery of money under a disputed contract involving complex and disputed questions of fact is not maintainable. Such matters should be adjudicated through civil suits or other private law remedies.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
