AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J.

( 1 ) BY consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the Writ Appeal and the Writ petition are taken up for hearing and disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE Appellant herein is a firm engaged in contract business. The respondents assigned it with certain lease works viz. , to remove the over-matured Eucalyptus or jungle bushes etc. , from the identified area covered under the lease within the stipulated time. The parties have entered into an agreement to that effect on 28-4-1998. Since the appellant has failed to complete the lease work even within the extended period of contract, as per the terms of contract, not only the contract awarded to the appellant was terminated by one mr. Veera Rajulu who according to the appellant is the then Head of C and LD, but also the security deposit and the EMD furnished by the appellant were also forfeited. It is made clear in the impugned order No. SCF/c and LD/pt-I/rev/97-C- 49825, dated 10-12-1999 that the termination of the contract is without prejudice to the government s rights to take action under any other clauses or sub-clauses of the agreement and to realize government dues and losses and damages whatsoever under such clauses or sub-clauses.

( 3 ) QUESTIONING the correctness of the termination order, the appellant filed W. P. No. 1425 of 2002 in this Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the contract dated 30-12-1999 in proceedings No. SCF/c and LD/ pt-1/97-C-49825 and for a consequential direction directing the respondents to pay the appellant-petitioner compensation in a sum of Rs. 84,00,000. 00 sustained by it due to the termination of the above contract by the respondents 2 and 3.

( 4 ) THE writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage by a learned single Judge of this Court on 12-2-2002 on the ground that the writ petition was filed without exhausting the remedy of alternative dispute resolving mechanism provided under the terms of contract and that the petitioner cannot approach this Court by invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India without availing of such a remedy for the simple reason of getting speedy relief. It was also observed by the learned single Judge that a direction cannot be issued for the enforcement of the contractual obligations under the extraordinary jurisdiction available under Article 226 of the constitution of India, more so when a specific clause for adjudication of all disputes is provided in the agreement that is concluded between the parties. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the above order, the present appeal has been filed.

( 5 ) IT is to be noticed in this context that the petitioner in the above Writ Petition no. 1425 of 2002 did not pray for quashing of the order of termination of contract dated 10-12-1999 passed by the Head L and RD. The only prayer made in the writ petition, as already noticed above, was to call for the records relating to the proceedings dated 30-12-1999 wherein the contract was awarded and to pay compensation of rs. 84,00,000/- sustained by it due to the termination of the contract by the respondents 2 and 3. Since there was no prayer relating to quashing of the order dated 10-12-1999, after dismissal of the Writ petition No. 1425 of 2002, the petitioner filed w. P. No. 7918 of 2002 in the month of April, 2002 seeking to quash the order dated 10-12-1999. However, the said writ petition viz. , W. P. No. 7918 of 2002 has been clubbed along with the present writ appeal and we have heard the arguments of mr. S. N. Kirubanandam, learned counsel appearing for Mr. M. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant and mr. C. V. Ramulu, learned Central government Standing Counsel both in the appeal and the writ petition.

( 6 ) IT is argued by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant that the learned single Judge has not noticed tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document