- (1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) Petitioner is a Contractor and claimed to have executed some civil work in respect whereto payment has not been made. It is stated that amount is not disputed, therefore, writ petition is maintainable and reliance is placed on Food Corporation of India and another Vs. M/s Seil Ltd. and others, 2008 AIR(SC) 1101; M/s Chitra Gupta Trading vs. U.P. Public Works Department and others, 2010 5 ADJ 299 (DB); and, M/s Pratiksha Constructions Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 41238 of 2013), decided on 11.02.2015.
(3.) However, we do not find that aforesaid authorities help petitioner in the present matter. In Food Corporation of India dispute relates to supply of levy sugar pursuant to Government orders which was governed by Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1955"). Under Section 3(2)(f) of Act, 1955 Central Government is empowered to direct any manufacturer of sugar to sell sugar to Central Government or State Government or a body owned or controlled by them for the purpose of making it available to public at fair price. This sugar is known commonly as levy sugar. Price of such levy sugar was fixed by Central Government in exercise of statutory power conferred under Section 3(3C) of Act, 1955 on yearly basis. Price of levy sugar although is required to be notified when sugar year commences but their exist a practice to notify previous year's price as a levy sugar on an ad hoc basis in October and final price used to be notified later on. Pursuant to such directions and notifications issued by Central Government under the provisions of Act, 1955 respondents Sugar Company supplied levy sugar to agencies of Central Government, i.e., Food Corporation of India as also UPPCF. The sugar mill demanded price of levy sugar from both, Food Corporation of India as also Directorate of Sugar, Ministry of Food. It is this non payment of price of levy sugar which caused sugar mill to approach Delhi High Court by filing writ petition. In respect of supply made to Central Government, Delhi High Court held that direction for making payment should be made but in respect of supply of levy sugar made to other agencies it was held that such direction is impermissible and remedy lies in common law. When matter came to Supreme Court it was held that supply of sugar was made in terms of statutory order as also on the directions made by Central Government and there is no factual dispute. Court held that contractual disputes involving public law elements are amenable to writ jurisdiction.;