S.C.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THIS Special Appeal has been filed against the order of learned Single Judge dated November 3, 1983 whereby the writ petition filed the appellants was dismissed.
(2.) M /s. Central India Machinery ., appellant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cimmoo') carried on business of manufacturing railway wagons at Bharatpur. The Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Electricity Board') is an Electricity Board constituted under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Electricity Board required wagons for the purpose of transporting coal for its Amarkantak Thermal Power Station and it invited tenders for supply of 20 wagons. The Cimmco submitted its tender and the said tender of Cimmco was accepted and an order for supply of 20 wagons was placed with the Cimmco by the Electricity Board. There after another contract for supply of 30 wagons was placed by the Electricity Board with the Cimmco in relation to Kobra Power Project. According to the appellants the aforesaid contracts for supply of wagons which were entered into by the Cimmco with the Electricity Board contain a Wage Escalation Clause which provides for increase in price in the event of increase in wages in accordance with a prescribed formula. The case of the appellants is that the Cimmco has supplied 46 wagons to the Electricity Board against both the contracts and although the Electricity Board has paid the price agreed to by it for the said wagons, a sum of Rs. 1,39,11 896/ -(principal) excluding Excise and Central Sales Tax, plus interest amount of Rs. 5,89.129/ - remains outstanding against the Electricity Beard on account of additional amount payable to Cimmco under the wage escalation clause in the two contracts. The case of the appellants is further that the Electricity Board has failed to make aforesaid payment even though the demand was made. The appellants filed a writ petition in this Court against the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Chairman of the Electricity Board where in it was prayed that a notice be issued to the respondents requiring them to produce the annual financial statement which should have been submitted in terms of Section 61 of the Act upto and inclusive of February, 1983 and even thereafter by way of supplementary or additional financial statement, if any, together with the proposals which the Chairman of the Electricity Board had made and the State Government had approved in the matter of making provision for the payment towards the supply of 50 wagons in question to the Electricity Board by the Cimmco. In the said writ petition, it was also prayed that writ of mandamus or direction of alike nature may be issued to the Chairman of the Elec. Board to include in the said financial statements the amount of the entire bills which have to be paid to the Cimmco by Chairman of the Elec. Board upto the moment and those which, are legally payable for the entire contract as soon as the same is fulfilled and completed by the Cimmco. In the writ petition, it was also prayed that a direction of alike or similar nature may be issued to the respondents to make all payments to the appellants of the amounts lawfully indisputably due to them after removing any obstacle or impediment in the matter of making such payment, which arises or may arise by reason of the statutory annual financial statement not being made in accordance with Section 61 of the Act and an a consequence of not being subject to disabilities imposed by Section 62 of the Act.
(3.) ON the said writ petition of appellants, a notice was issued to the respondents requiring them to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted. In response to the said notice a reply was filed on behalf of the respondents where in certain objections were raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. One of the objections that was raised in the said reply to the writ petition was that the right that was sought to be enforced by the appellants in the writ petition was a contractual right and that the said right arising out of a contract, could not be enforced by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and that a civil suit is the remedy for enforcement of the contractual rights. In the said reply the respondents disputed that the amount mentioned by the appellants in the writ petition was payable to them by the Electricity Board.;