Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA
P.P.RAJA REDDY - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Of
Decided On : 11/27/1996
CONTRACT - ENFORCEMENT - JURISDICTION OF WRIT COURT - CONTRACTUAL DISPUTE - PUBLIC LAW ELEMENT - WRIT APPLICATION NOT MAINTAINABLE - RIGHT TO PROPERTY - DISPOSSESSION - LEGAL REQUIREMENT - EQUITABLE JURISDICTION - EXERCISE - DISCRETIONARY REMEDY - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who had entered into an agreement with the respondent school to run a tuck shop on the school premises, filed a writ petition challenging his eviction from the premises. The petitioner claimed that he had constructed the shop room on the basis of a plan approved by the Principal and that he was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before being evicted. The respondents contended that the petitioner had violated the terms of the agreement by selling hard drinks mixed with soft drinks, obscene literature, and guide books, and that he had not obtained permission to construct the shop room.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner did not have any right to maintain the writ application for enforcement of the contract since the contract was void ab initio as the Principal had no authority to enter into such an agreement on behalf of the Union of India, to whom the land on which the school building stood belonged. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to an opportunity of hearing before being evicted since the termination of the agreement was not a quasi-judicial act and did not attract the principles of natural justice. The court further held that the petitioner had not been able to prove mala fide on the part of the respondent school in evicting him.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had any right to maintain the writ application for enforcement of the contract. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before being evicted. 3. Whether the petitioner had been able to prove mala fide on the part of the respondent school in evicting him.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ petition is not maintainable in a matter governed by contract-qua-contract as in such a matter public law element is not involved. 2. The termination of a contract is not a quasi-judicial act and does not attract the principles of natural justice. 3. An allegation of mala fide must be supported by concrete evidence.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed with the direction that the petitioner could serve a notice to the respondent school and the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station to open the locked room and return any articles belonging to him.
( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this writ application, inter alia, praying for issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to carry on his business of tuck shop pursuant to the agreement entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. A copy of the said agreement has been produced before this Court. The petitioner was permitted to run a Tuck Shop on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. In 3 terms of the aforementioned agreement, the price of the articles which are to be sold had been fixed. Clause 13 of the said agreement states that in the matters of dispute the Principal's decision will be final and binding on the contractor. In terms of Clause 3 of the said agreement the petitioner was prohibited from making any permanent structure even at his cost except with the written approval of the Principal. On or about 27-9-1994 a Circular was issued calling upon the members of the staff to give their opinion in writing as to the opening of a Tuck Shop in the school campus. The said circular is contained in annexure 'a' to the writ application and only thereafter upon a resolution having been passed by the members of the Managing Committee the aforementioned agreement was entered into on 1-1-1995 and pursuant thereto the petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs. 160/- per month as well as electrical charges at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and water charges at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. The petitioner contends that he had constructed the shop in question on the basis of a plan prepared by the Principal which has been denied and disputed by the respondents. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition it has been stated that the petitioner was made certain renovation. On 4-7-1996 certain allegations were made as against the petitioner and by an order dated 17-7-1996 the petitioner was asked to vacate the shop room within 19-7-1996 inter alia upon complaint that he had been selling hard drinks mixed with soft drinks to the students. Allegedly the petitioner refused to accept the said notice and the same was pasted on the door of the shop room, Allegedly on 2-8-1996 an order was passed by the respondent No. 2 directing that P. M. Reddy who is a Chowkidar of Refrigeration section should not sit in the tuck shop as he is an unauthorised person. The said letter is contained in Annexure 'a' to the affidavit-in-reply. It has further been stated that despite the purported termination of the tenancy, the respondent No. 2 purchased soft drinks from the aforementioned shop. However on 13-8-1996 on instruction of the respondent No. 2 the military and Police authority removed most of the articles including the Books. In the affidavit-in-opposition the respondent No. 2 has clearly stated that the complaints were being received from the students and guardians to the effect that the petitioner has been selling liquor mixing soft drinks and obscene pictures. It has further been stated that since the said shop room or the Tuck shop became a centre for anti-social activities of the writ petitioner, the police authority vacated the premises in question.
( 2 ) AN application for intervention has been filed on behalf of some guardians of the Wards wherein various allegation has been against the petitioner.
( 3 ) KEEPING in view the point involved in this application, both the main writ application as well as the application for intervention are taken up for hearing together.
( 4 ) MR. K. K. Maitra, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that the petitioner has no objection if this Court takes into consideration the statements made by the intervenor and allow the said application.
( 5 ) IN view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the application for intervention is allowed.
( 6 ) MR. K. K. Maitra, learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner having been in possession of the premises in quest
AI
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
