Case: – ILEAD Foundation and Another v/s State of West Bengal and Another; W.P.A. No.25102 of 2022
This case revolved around a dispute between the petitioners, an institute of technology, and the State of West Bengal regarding the execution of a project under the “Din Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushaliya Yojana,” a scheme initiated by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
The petitioners, appointed as a Project Implementing Agency (PIA), claimed that the second instalment of funds amounting to Rs.1,19,91,860/- was wrongfully withheld by the respondent on the grounds of alleged irregularities and deviations from the project guidelines. The petitioners approached the High Court in its Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction seeking the release of the withheld funds.
The judgment of the Hon’ble Court addressed the maintainability of the writ petition and delved into the core issues raised by both parties. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of an arbitration clause in the contract and the involvement of complex questions of fact and law.
The Court thus held ultimately held that the writ petition was not maintainable, citing the existence of disputed questions of fact that required detailed adjudication and factual assessment, which exceeded the scope of the writ court’s domain.
The judgment emphasized that the allegations and counter-allegations between the parties called for a thorough examination of evidence, making it more appropriate for an arbitral tribunal or other forums. It also highlighted that the Court had not entered into the merits of the case, leaving the issues of law and fact open for independent adjudication by the appropriate forum.

Author of this article:
Adv. Ravish Bhatt,
Partner, R&D Law Chambers,
Dual Qualified Lawyer Solicitor | International Tax Affiliate

Connect with Mr. Bhatt on Linkedin:

  • Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader or user should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information written above without first seeking legal advice from qualified law practitioner.