Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) From the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears to this Court that they have become aggrieved by a decision of the Steel Authority of India in deducting 20 per cent of the bill value on account of tolerance. However, the petitioners have realised the rest. According to the petitioners several meetings were held pursuant to an order dated 1st September, 1992 passed in an erstwhile writ petition under which the respondent authority was directed to prepare the final bill on the basis of the report of the Surveyor etc.
(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that since on the basis of the earlier order in an earlier writ petition the authority concerned considered the matter and released the amount upon deducting the 20 per cent tolerance being the subject-matter of the contract, a fresh writ lies as against such decision. Respondents have taken two points firstly in a non-statutory contract, no writ lies and to that extent they relied upon a judgment reported in AIR 1989 SC 1076 Bareilly Development Authority & Ors. v. Ajay Pal Singh & Ors. secondly in the self-same cause a writ petition was moved on the earlier occasion and after passing the order by the Writ Court they have released the appropriate sum in favour of the petitioners. Therefore on the self-same cause no writ lies.
(3.) On the other hand, relying on a judgment reported in [1989] 4 SCC lit was submitted by the petitioners that no one ought to enrich himself at the (expenses of other. Obviously, there is a distinctive feature in between unjust enrichment and the claim arising out of the commercial transactions. In a case of revenue being the statutory claims if the Governmental authority withholds certain sums instead of refunding the same, obviously it will be construed as unjust enrichment and the same can be questioned before the Writ Court having a public law element. But if there is a transaction in between the two contracting parties being non-statutory contract, a fact finding the court is the appropriate forum for adjudication of the matter to come to a conclusion that such public authority withheld the amount illegally. Such Civil Court is empowered to J declare as to whether withholding the same by the public body is unjust or just in such circumstances. The Supreme Court decision being 1989 (4) SCC 1 (supra) itself arising out of a suit. Therefore the declaration whether withholding any money arising out of a contractual obligation unjust or not was originally decided by the appropriate Civil Court have any jurisdiction in respect of such matter.;