SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Cal) 121

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
J. P. MITTER, J.
Carlsbad Mineral Water Mfg.
Versus
H. M. Jagtiani
O.O.C. Matter No. 35 of 1950
Decided On : 19-06-1950

Advocates:
I.P. Mukerji with S.K. Sen Gupta for Applicant; H.N. Sanyal with E.R. Meyer, for Respondent.

A writ of mandamus cannot issue to enforce a contract, and the doing or the forbearing, which it is sought to enforce, must be clearly incumbent on the respondent in his public character under any law for the time being in force.

Headnote:

MANDAMUS - LICENSE RENEWAL - AGREEMENT FOR RENEWAL - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1877 - S. 45 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ART. 226 - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS - ENFORCEABILITY - PUBLIC DUTY - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - DISCRETION OF COURT - Held, a writ of mandamus cannot issue to compel a person to enforce an agreement. The doing or the forbearing, which it is sought to enforce, must be, under any law for the time being in force, clearly incumbent on the respondent in his public character and the applicants have no other specific and adequate legal remedy.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants, manufacturers and caterers of ice and mineral waters, had been working as Railway contractors for 27 years, providing services to bona-fide passengers, Railway servants, Railway Institutes, hospitals, and refreshment room contractors over the entire system of the East Indian Railway. The respondent, the General Manager of the Railway, allegedly refused to renew their catering contract for a fresh term despite a subsisting agreement for such renewal. The applicants claimed that they had expanded their factory and invested in modern machineries in reliance upon an agreement with the Railway Administration for permanent renewal of their contract. They alleged that the Administration had wrongfully terminated their contract and refused to issue them licenses for the period from 1-6-1950 to 31-3-1951.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the applicants were not entitled to a writ of mandamus or an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent to renew their contract or to direct the Divisional Superintendents of the Railway to permit them to use the premises previously used by them as depots and stalls. The Court found that the applicants had failed to establish a clear legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the respondent and that they had an alternative specific remedy at law by way of a suit for damages.

Issues: 1. Whether a writ of mandamus can issue to compel a person to enforce an agreement? 2. Whether the doing or the forbearing, which it is sought to enforce, must be clearly incumbent on the respondent in his public character under any law for the time being in force? 3. Whether the applicants have no other specific and adequate legal remedy?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ of mandamus cannot issue to compel a person to enforce an agreement. 2. The doing or the forbearing, which it is sought to enforce, must be, under any law for the time being in force, clearly incumbent on the respondent in his public character. 3. The applicants have an alternative specific remedy at law by way of a suit for damages.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the application for a writ of mandamus with costs.

ORDER :- This is an application for a writ of Mandamus to compel the respondent H.M. Jagtiani as General Manager of the East Indian Railway to issue to the applicants a license or licenses for the period of 1-6-1950 to 31-3-1951 for sale, throughout the railway system, of ice, mineral waters and cordials, and to direct the Divisional Superintendents of the Railway to permit the applicants to use the premises heretofore used by them as depots and stalls for the sale of their products.

2. The applicants are manufacturers and caterers of ice and mineral waters. For 27 years or so they have worked as Railway contractors for catering ice, aerated waters and cordials to bona-fide passengers, Railway servants, Railway Institutes and hospitals and to refreshment room contractors over the entire system of the said Railway. The respondent was lately the Chief Commercial Manager, and is now the General Manager, of the East Indian Railway. The Head Office of the said Railway is at No. 105, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta.

3. The applicants claim to relief is founded upon an allegation that the East Indian Railway Administration has wrongfully refused to renew their catering contract for a fresh term in spite of a subsisting agreement for such renewal. They say that although during the last 27 years formal contracts embodying the terms and conditions of their services as caterers were periodically entered into by and between the parties, yet they often in fact rendered such services from time to time even without such formal contracts and that such services were accepted by the Railway Authorities as in continuation and or renewal of the contract last expiring. It is said that in the course of such services it became necessary for them to expand their factory at Howrah by importing expensive and up-to-date machineries in order to meet the growing requirements of the said Railway Administration. It is the applicants case that in or about 1928 they asked that subject to their services being satisfactory, the periodical catering contracts should thenceforward stand on a permanent basis with regard to renewals thereof, so that they could continue and improve their services by making further investments and thus pursue a policy of expansion of their factory to meet the growing demands of the said Administration. This proposal, according to them. was accepted by the then Chief Operating Superintendent of the Railway who assured the applicants that no other contract would be employed by the Administration so long as the applicants services were satisfactory and that the periodical contracts would be renewed by the Administration from time to time as a matter of course.

4. It is said that on the applicants insisting upon the said agreement or arrangement being incorporated into the then next contract, the said Administration, in order to remove the feeling of insecurity on the part of the applicants, convened a meeting of the various Divisional Superintendents of the said Administration. The said meeting was presided over by said Chief Operating Superintendent, and a copy of the minutes of the said meeting dated 15-9-1928, was forwarded to the applicants. The said minutes ran as follows :

"It was agreed that a long-term contract should not be given to Messrs. Carlsbad Mineral Water Manufacturing Co. and it was considered that the assurance they have already received that so long as their work is satisfactory the contract will remain with them is sufficient guarantee to warrant this Company proceeding with any policy of expansion they may have in view." It is said that in reliance upon the said agreement the applicants from time to time invested large sums of money amounting to several lakhs of rupees in enlarging their factory and equipping it with modern machineries of foreign manufacture. They claim that their services to the Administration have all along been satisfactory and that they have sold their products at the same rates as were fixed in 1923.

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top