Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Municipal Committee Katra & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ashwani Kumar - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(S).14970-71 of 2017
Decided on : 09-05-2024
(A) Government Contract – Tender – Claim for monetary relief/damages arising from fallout of contractual obligations – Having participated in tender proceedings with open eyes, respondent-writ petitioner challenged Clause-8 of auction notice in civil Court and thereby, stalled issuance of work order – Once respondent-writ petitioner had participated in tender process being fully conscious of terms and conditions of auction notice, he was estopped from taking a U-turn so as to question legality or validity of terms and conditions of auction notice – By dragging the matter to litigation, respondent himself was responsible for delay occasioned in issuance of work order which deprived him of opportunity to work for entire period of 365 days – Impugned common judgment and final order passed by Division Bench of High Court quashed and set aside. [Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 115] (Paras 20, 21 and 24)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 74 – Writ jurisdiction – Scope and ambit – Disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained by High Court in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction – Relief which was sought by respondent in writ petition was purely by way of damages – Such relief could not have been subject matter of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India – Quantification of damages would require entering into disputed questions of facts and High Court ought to have relegated writ petitioner(respondent) to competent Court for claiming damages – Impugned judgments quashed and set aside. (Paras 22, 23 and 24)
(C) Latin Maxim – nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria – No man can take advantage of his own wrong – No one can be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law – It is a sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of non-performance he has occasioned. (Paras 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Brief controversy presented for adjudication in these appeals is whether High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, was entitled to entertain a dispute which was purely civil in nature filed for claiming monetary relief/damages arising from fallout of contractual obligations.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgments dated 20th February, 2015 and 30th September, 2015 are ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence, the same deserve to be and are hereby quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeals allowed.
1. The appellants seek to challenge the common judgment and final order dated 30th September, 2015 passed by learned Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in LPAOW No. 20 of 2015 preferred by the appellants for assailing the order dated 20th February, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 1199 of 2013; and in LPAOW No. 21 of 2015, filed by the respondent seeking modification of the order dated 20th February, 2015. The learned Division Bench disposed of the LPAOW No. 20 of 2015 preferred by the appellants, whereas the cross-appeal preferred by the respondent being LPAOW No. 21 of 2015 was dismissed.
2. The brief controversy presented for adjudication in these appeals is whether the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, was entitled to entertain a dispute which was purely civil in nature filed for claiming monetary relief/damages arising from fallout of contractual obligations.
3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of these appeals are that the appellant-Municipal Committee, Katra issued a Notice Inviting Tender(hereinafter being referred to as ‘NIT’) dated 3rd March, 2010 inviting bids for supply of mules and mazdoors essentially involved in transportation of pilgrims from the base camp at Katra to holy shrine of Mata Vaishno Devi, atop the Trikuta hill. Several bids were received in response to the said NIT. The respondent herein was the second highest bidder, who subsequently became the highest bidder, as Shri Pritam Das, the original highest bidder did not come forward to execute the contract. Accordingly, the contract came to be offered to the respondent who accepted the offer so given. The tenure of the contract as per NIT was from 1st April, 2010 till 31st March, 2011. In terms of Clause-8 of the NIT, the successful bidder was required to deposit 40% of the bid amount within 24 hours from the time of acceptance, i.e. on or before 31st March, 2010. It was also enjoined upon the bidder to deposit 5 post dated cheques along with bank guarantee to secure the amount for remaining tenure of the contract period.
4. Clause-8 of NIT would be germane to the controversy and is being reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -
5. The respondent sought relaxation in the Clause-8 of the NIT on the ground that the condition of furnishing bank guarantee for the remainder amount was unjust and arbitrary.
6. Having failed to get a favourable response from the Municipal authorities, the respondent filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that Clause-8 of the NIT was arbitrary. The suit was accompanied by an application seeking temporary injunction. The Court of learned District Judge, Reasi vide order dated 29th April, 2010, allowed the application and granted temporary injunction directing the appellants herein to issue the order of allotment of contract to the respondent-plaintiff.
7. The defendants i.e. appellants herein challenged the order dated 29th April, 2010 by filing a Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal(CIMA) No.312 of 2010 wherein the High Court passed an order dated 7th May, 2010 directing the appellants to issue a work order in favour of the respondent.
8. In view of the order dated 7th May, 2010 passed by the High Court in the above appeal, a formal work order d
(1) Disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained by High Court in exercise of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction.(2) A wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make profi....
The Court established that compliance with all eligibility criteria in tender documents is essential, but public interest may prevent judicial interference in ongoing contracts.
Judicial review in contractual matters is limited to evaluating decision-making processes and does not extend to substituting the authority's decisions unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala ....
A writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for disputes relating to contractual obligations. Such disputes should be resolved through civil suits.
Contractual agreement - Whether existence of arbitral agreement between parties that High Court of Delhi alone will have jurisdiction to try dispute arising out of contract is enforceable in law - Un....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
