N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THE question for consideration in this writ appeal s whether a writ can be issued in a matter which is purely contractual in nature not arising out of a statute nor depriving any fundamental right nor even a discriminatory order. This question has been answered not in one case but in a catena of decisions of both the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

( 2 ) BEFORE answering this question, it is appropriate to narrate a few facts which gave rise to this appeal. The appellant is a contractor. The 2nd respondent herein, viz. , the Chief Engineer, National Highways, Errum Manzil, Hyderabad put up for auction the annual rights to collect toll fee at Kanakadurgamma varadhi across the river Krishna for the period from 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993. The appellant-petitioner was the highest bidder and he offered a sum of Rs. 1,07,15,000. 00. The same was accepted by the 2nd respondent. The Government by its order in G. O. Rt. No. 278, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Roads-II-I) Department dated 23-3-1992 accepted the said recommendations of the Chief Engineer, the 2nd respondent herein. The same was confirmed by the 2nd Respondent and the right of collection of toll fee for the year 1992-93 was conferred in favour of the appellant-petitioner which was followed by entering into a contract between the parties viz. , the appellant-petitioner and the State represented by the 3rd Respondent - The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, National Highways Division, Guntur. While carrying on his business of collecting toll fee, there was a strike called by the All India Truck Operators from 1-7-1992 to 7-7-1992 and as a result of the said strike, no trucks passed over the said river and the appellant-petitioner was unable to collect any toll during those days. It is contended that due to non passing of any trucks for those 7 days, the appellant-petitioner had suffered unanticipated injury and therefore he is entitled to claim remission for the period from 1-7-1992 to 7-7-1992. In this connection, he made a representation to the Government on 27-7-1992. The said representation of the appellant-petitioner was rejected by the Respondent No. 3 by letter dated 7-8-1992 informing that there was no condition in the lease provided for such contingency. Aggrieved by the said endorsement and refusal on the part of the respondents in not considering the petitioner s request to grant remission, he filed a writ petition before this Court in W. RNo. 10539/92. It was contended that the respondent s attitude in respect of the appellant-petitioner s request is quite incorrect. Non running of the vehicles for 7 days caused heavy loss to the appellant-petitioner. Such a stoppage of running of the vehicles was not at the instance of the appellant-petitioner but it was due to the strike called by the All India Truck Operators. Thus, the contract that was entered into between the appellant-petitioner and the State was frustrated. As such, the appellant-petitioner is entitled to claim remission under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act.

( 3 ) THE said claim of the appellant-petitioner was opposed by the respondents by filing a detailed counter. The learned single Judge of this Court after hearing both sides and also taking into consideration the effect of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act which is extracted here under including the following decisions of the Supreme Court which the appellant-petitioner relied upon, found that there was no obligation on the part of the respondents to make good the loss which according to the appellant incurred during the period from 1-7-1992 to 7-7-1992. "section 56 : An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void. A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. Where one person has promised to do something which he knew, or, with reas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document