IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, ARUN KUMAR JHA, JJ.
Tripurari Prasad Singh S/o Late Kartik Narayan Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3784 of 2022
Decided On : 17-03-2023
Constitution of India-Article 226-While entertaining objection as to maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, Court should bear in mind fact that power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of Constitution-High Court having regard to facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition-Jurisdiction under Article 226 is a valuable constitutional safeguard against arbitrary exercise of State power or a misuse of authority-Jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be ousted only on the basis that dispute pertains to contractual arena-State and its instrumentalities are not exempt from duty to act fairly merely because in their business dealings they have entered into realm of contract-Similarly, presence of an arbitration clause does oust jurisdiction under Article 226 in all cases though, it still needs to be decided from case to case as to whether recourse to a public law remedy can justifiably be invoked-Wherever mixed questions of law and facts are involved, Writ Court has jurisdiction to look into the matter under Article 226 of Constitution of India-Present case being one such instance, this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain writ petition. (Paras 20, 1 and 24)
Government Contract-Termination of Contract-Petitioner has been given ample opportunity to complete work but he failed to honour his commitment-BSTDC has taken decision in totality of facts and circumstances of case and not on the basis of directions of his higher authorities-Petitioner has failed to make out any case in his support-Remaining work has been completed by third party-Claim of petitioner to allow him to complete balance work in question cannot be allowed-Claim of petitioner to pay all contractual amount, being a disputed questions of fact and cannot be adjudicated by this Court-Petitioner is at liberty to take recourse of said clause of contract in case of his grievance. (Paras 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30)
JUDGMENT :
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Initially, the present writ petition has been filed claiming the following reliefs:
(II) For restraining the respondents for taking any coercive steps against the petitioner as well as creating third party right relates to fresh tender during pendency of this writ application.
(III) For declaring that the actions of the respondents are arbitrariness, mala-fide, malicious, colourable exercise of power.
(IV) For further passing such an Order or Orders for which the petitioner is entitled under the law in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
3. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 1 of 2022 for amendment in the instant writ petition by adding following relief in Para-1 of the instant writ petition:
4. Again, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 2 of 2022 for amendment in the instant writ petition by adding following relief in Para-1 of the instant writ petition:
5. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 3 of 2022 for impleading Mr. Saroj Narayan Prasad Singh, son of not known, resident of Mohalla-Habibpura, Barara, P.O. and P.S. Sohsarai, District-Nalanda as a party respondent no. 9 in the instant writ petition on the ground that during pendency of the instant writ petition, the respondent Corporation has created 3rd party interest in terms of liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2022. However, vide order dated 05.07.2022, the said interlocutory application has been dismissed as withdrawn as the same has lost its significance.
6. Again, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 4 of 2022 for amendment in the instant writ petition by adding following relief in Para-1 of the instant writ petition:
7. The short facts, according to the petitioner, are that pursuant to a Re-Tender Notice dated 10.07.2018 issue
Arjun Singh and Co. vs. Union of India and Others
ABL International Ltd. and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others
Manohar Lal vs. Ugrasen and Others
M/s Pancham Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others
Ram Barai Singh and Company vs. State of Bihar and Others
The court upheld the administrative decision to terminate a contract for delay in completion due to the petitioner's failure to adhere to the agreement terms.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to contractual procedures and the validity of penalties for non-performance, reinforcing the authority's right to terminate contracts under specified c....
Judicial review is permissible in contractual disputes involving public law elements, but the existence of an arbitration clause limits the scope of such review.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide an opportunity for the parties to be heard before rescinding a contract, in accordance with the principles of natural....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.