Honble PALSHIKAR, J.–By these petitions the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Haryana State Electricity Board, a statutory body to refund the earnest money or security deposit offered by the petitioner in response to the invitation to offer issued by the Haryana State Electricity Board. The petitioner Company was unable to supply the material on the terms required by the Haryana State Electricity Board and, therefore, no contract of supply materialised. The claim of the petitioner for refund of the earnest money or security deposit not having been acceeded to by the Board, the present petitions are filed.

(2). The former Chief Justice of India Honble Mr. Justice M.H. Beg observed, while deciding case of Ganpat vs. Sashikant (1), about law of interpretation and precedence. It would be worthwhile to consider in extenso what was observed by his Lordship,-

``If the quest for certainty in law is often baffled, as it is according to

Judge Jerome Frank in ``Law and the Modern Mind, the reasons are mainly two: firstly, the lack of precise formulation of even statutory law so as to leave lacunae and loopholes in it giving scope to much avoidable disputation: and, secondly, the unpredictability of the judicial rendering of the law after every conceivable as well as inconceiv- able aspect of it has been explored and subjected to forensic debate. Even the staunchest exponents of legal realism, who are apt to treat the quest for certainty in the administration of justice in accordance with law, in an uncertain world of imperfect human beings, to be practically always futile and doomed to failure, will not deny the desi- rability and the beneficial effects of such certainty in law as may be possible. Unfortunately, there are not infrequent instances where what should have been clear and certain, by applying well-established canons of statutory construction becomes befogged by the vagaries, if one may use a possibly strong word without disrespect, of judicial exposition divorced from these canons.

(3). Then with regard to the observance of the law of precedent it was observed by the Supreme Court in the same judgment referred to above as under:-

``Even that certainty and predictability in the administration of justice in accordance with law which is possible only if lawyers and Courts care to scrupulously apply the law clearly declared by this Court, would not be attainable, if this elementary duty is overlooked.

(4). The quest of certainty in law is often baffled for lack of precise formulation of statutory law leaving lacunae giving rise to much avoidable disputations. One such lacuna, in my opinion, can be observed in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It does not lay down in terms any limitation on the scope of issuing writs under that Article though in several decisions the Supreme Court observed consistently that the existence of efficacious alternate remedy shall normally be bar for exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

(5). The provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution were extensively amen- ded in 1976 after proclamation of emergency by then Government led by the Congress party and certain limitations were incorporated in Article 226. It would be worthwhile to note the same verbatim,–

``Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 but subject to the provisions of Article 131A and Article 226A, every High Court shall have power throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them,–

(a) for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by the provisions of Part III; or

(b) for the redress of any injury of a substantial nature by reason of the contravention of any other provision of this Constitution or any provision of any enact

Click Here to Read the rest of this document