IMPORTANT POINTS
When SLP is dismissed in limine without recording any reason, judgment of the High Court impugned therein cannot be said to have merged with the order dismissing SLP.
Scope of judicial review in contractual matters is very limited.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 136 – SLP – Dismissal in limine – Doctrine of merger – When SLP is dismissed in limine without recording any reason, judgment of the High Court impugned therein cannot be said to have merged with the order dismissing SLP. (Para 47)
       (2000) 6 SCC 359; (1986) 4 SCC 146; (2011) 4 SCC 602 – Relied upon
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of mandamus issued – Subsequent events prompting High Court to ask Chief Secretary to review, discuss and resolve the issues – Appellant not challenging the same, rather acquiescing – In pursuance, Chief Secretary issuing directions – Not open to appellant to challenge the directions. (Para 50, 60)
       (c) Administration of Justice – Judicial Review – In contractual issues – Jurisdiction – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Scope of Jurisdiction is very limited – Even where one of the contracting parties is the State or an instrumentality of the State – Under Article 226 High Court would not normally grant the relief of specific performance of a contract – High Court rightly observed that the appellant can seek the appropriate relief by way of a civil suit. (Para 51, 52)
       (2007) 2 SCC 588; (2006) 10 SCC 236 – Relied upon
       (1994) 6 SCC 651 – Distinguished
       (1973) 2 SCC 825; (1963) Supp (2) SCR 417; (1960) 3 SCR 604; (1989) Supp (1) SCC 487; (2004) 1 SCC 1; (2007) 2 SCC 588 – Referred
       (d) Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 56 – Frustration of contract due to subsequent events – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 10 – Appellant not having privity of contract with IDA – IDA leasing out land to MPRTC – MPRTC entering into agreement with appellant for construction of Bus stand and commercial complex on BOT basis – IDA cancelling lease with MPRTC – Appellant not having cause of action against IDA – Specific performance of the agreement with MPRTC not possible in view of subsequent events including Heavy indebtedness of MPRTC. (Para 54, 55)
       (1969) 1 SCR 65; (1935) A.C. 524 – Distinguished
       (e) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Disputed questions of fact – Cannot be decided under Writ jurisdiction – Appellant granted liberty to seek its remedies against MPRTC in a civil court. (Para 58)
       (2007) 1 SCC 477 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       A lease deed dated 2nd November, 1981 was entered into between MPRTC and IDA. The possession of the land was handed over to MPRTC on 22nd January, 1982. Initially, the lease was taken by the MPRTC for the purpose of a bus stand. It appears that no final decision was taken till 8th November, 2001 when the Council of Ministers of the State Government authorized the construction of a commercial complex on the land under BOT Scheme. A tender notice was issued on 13th April, 2002. On 7th July, 2003, the bid of the appellant was found to be the highest. The amount as mentioned in Para 6 earlier, was duly paid by the appellant. A separate agreement was entered into between MPRTC and the appellant on 4th February, 2004
       On 25th May, 2004, MPRTC deposited the lease rental with IDA. A formal lease was executed on 26th May, 2004. As noticed earlier, the lease was for 30 years. The leased land (plot) was to be used only for the bus terminal. It was specifically provided that the plot cannot be divided. The possession of the plot had been received on 22nd January, 1982. The lease also provided that the Rules published in the gazette on 16th December, 1977 shall be binding on the lessee.
       On 24th June, 2004, IDA gave its no objection for bus terminal-cum-commercial complex to be constructed under the BOT Scheme. On 18th December, 2005, the State Government decided to wind up the MPRTC. The proposal of the State Government was not approved by the Ministry of Shipping and Road Transport, Government of India.
       On 5th August, 2005, the directions were issued by the High Court in the writ petition filed by the appellant. SLP filed against these directions was dismissed by this Court on 7th October, 2005. In the contempt petition filed by the appellant for non compliance of the directions of the High Court dated 5th August, 2005, MPRTC was restrained from handing over the possession of the property or to create third party interest/rights. On 2nd November, 2007, the lease was cancelled by IDA on the ground that MPRTC had violated the prescribed conditions by handing over the possession to RTO. As noticed earlier, the cancellation of the lease was challenged by MPRTC, by way of a writ petition, which was disposed of by the High Court on 11th December, 2007 by referring the entire issue to the Chief Secretary. The appellant did not challenge the order dated 2nd November, 2007 but submitted to the jurisdiction of the Chief Secretary by filing a comprehensive representation. Even in the writ petition in which the impugned order had been passed, the appellant had only challenged Clauses III, IV and V of the order of the Chief Secretary.
       Finding of the Court:
       Having not challenged the High Court decision at appropriate time and rather acquiescing, petitioner cannot challenge the same at a later stage.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. –

1. Leave granted.

2. The Civil Appeal …………of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 35001 of 2012 impugning the judgment of the M.P. High Court at Jabalpur rendered in Writ Petition No. 2937 of 2009. The Writ Petition has been disposed of along with Review Application MCC No. 99 of 2009 and MCC No. 893 of 2008 as well as Contempt Petition No. 469 of 2008. The writ petition has been disposed of with certain directions. Whereas the aforesaid Contempt Petition and the two Review Petitions have been disposed of in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2937 of 2009.

3. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid SLP are as follows:-

4. In 1979, Respondent No.2 / Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “MPRTC”) proposed to construct a bus stand at Vijay Nagar, Indore. To this end, an Agreement for Lease dated 2nd November, 1981 was entered into between the Transport Corporation and Respondent No.5/ Indore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “IDA”), by which the land belonging to IDA, admeasuring 10 acres situated at Vijay Nagar, Indore (hereinafter referred to as “proposed site”) was agreed to be allotted to the Transport Corporation, initially, for 30 years. In pursuance of the Lease Agreement, possession of the proposed site was handed over to the MPRTC.

5. The Council of Ministers, State of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dated 8th November, 2001, authorised the Transport Corporation to construct a commercial complex on the land owned by it or allotted to it on lease, under a Build, Own-Operate and Transfer (“BOT”) Scheme through open tenders. The revenue generated from the said project(s) was to be used to discharge the liability of the MPRTC. On 13th April, 2003, a notice inviting bids for selection of a developer under the BOT Scheme was issued and published in the leading newspapers. In response to this notice, a total number of ten applications were received; and out of those ten applications, five were found to have satisfied the eligibility criteria. Appellant was placed at Sr. No.1 in the list of the candidates satisfying the eligibility criteria. Thereafter, a Special Committee was constituted for the scrutiny of tenders received for construction of the bus stand/commercial premises under the B.O.T. Scheme. On 3rd July, 2003, the Special Committee recommended that since the premium amount offered by the bidders was less, further negotiations be held with all the qualified bidders. Accordingly, the Special Committee held negotiations with the qualified bidders on 7th July, 2003, wherein the Appellant’s bid for the B.O.T. Scheme was found to be the highest.

6. MPRTC, after scrutiny of the financial bid and the proposal submitted by the Appellant for B.O.T. scheme, approved its bid vide Acceptance Letter dated 3rd October, 2003. In the Acceptance Letter, the Appellant was directed to deposit 25 per cent amount of the total premium amount of Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lac Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty (Rs.1,16,37,750/-) within 15 days of the issuance of the Acceptance Letter. Accordingly, Appellant deposited the first installment of Rs.1,16,37,750/-. The appellant also have to pay a further sum of Rs.7,33,320/- demanded by MPRTC as consultancy fees.

7. In pursuance of the Acceptance Letter, an Agreement dated 4th February, 2004 was entered into between the Appellant and the MPRTC. This agreement inter alia provided that the tender document with scope of work general conditions, special conditions, general specifications, list of brands and offer price bid shall form part of the agreement.

8. The MPRTC issued a work order dated 16th March, 2004 to the Appellant for demolishing the existing structure on the land; to be replaced by the commercial complex. On 11th May, 2004, the State Government issued a notification, in exercise of powers under Sections 35(2) and 35(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 360

IMPORTANT POINTSWhen SLP is dismissed in limine without recording any reason, judgment of the High Court impugned therein cannot be said to have merged with the order dismissing SLP.Scope of judicial review in contractual matters is very limited.

Cases Referred (19)

IMPORTANT POINTS
When SLP is dismissed in limine without recording any reason, judgment of the High Court impugned therein cannot be said to have merged with the order dismissing SLP.
Scope of judicial review in contractual matters is very limited.