Lamba Industries vs Union Of India - 1990 Supreme(SC) 658

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

1990 Supreme(SC) 658

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

BEFORE MM. PUNCHHI AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
LAMBA INDUSTRIES
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeal No. 1100 of 1977
Decided on 31-10-1990

Important Points

The judgment affirms that the definition of 'authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution has an expanded meaning and that High Courts possess wide jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant relief, even in cases involving breach of contractual obligations.

Subject

Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.12, Art.226

Headnote

(A) Constitution of India - Article 12 and Article 226 - Definition of 'authority' - Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability of writ petition in cases of breach of contract - Expanded meaning of 'authority' under Article 12 is a settled position - High Court possesses wide jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant or deny relief, including matters arising from breach of contractual obligations.

Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed by certificate against a judgment of the High Court raising questions regarding whether a state trading entity constitutes an 'authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution and whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked for the breach of contractual obligations.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the question regarding the definition of 'authority' is already settled and the question regarding the scope of writ jurisdiction in contractual matters is within the wide discretion of the High Court.

Issues: Whether a state trading entity is an 'authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution and whether relief for breach of contract can be obtained through writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: The expanded meaning of 'authority' under Article 12 is settled law, and the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is sufficiently broad to determine the grant of relief in contractual disputes.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

ORDER

This appeal by certificate from the Punjab and Haryana High Court apparently raises three questions of law stated to be of substantial and general importance. The first one is whether the State Trading Corporation is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and as such amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This question does not arise any more in view of the settled position of the expanded meaning given to the word authority. The second question whether relief can be obtained by a party in writ jurisdiction, even if it arises out of breach of contract of obligations, also does not survive for obvious reasons that the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide and it knows where to grant relief and deny where. The third question has not even been properly formulated and what is required is an authoritative decision from this Court. Having perused the judgment of the High Court with the assistance of learned counsel, we find that nothing survives to be answered by us. The judgment of the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

For citation: 1991(2) SCC 407

Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.