Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3752
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
Semalaiappan & Others
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board, Rep. by its Chief Engineer, Southern Region, Madurai & Another
W.A.(MD) Nos.180 to 184, 332 to 336 of 2010 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,of 2010
Decided On : 27-08-2010
For the Appellants :K. Muthumani Doraisamy, Senior Counsel for M/s.Muthumani Doraisamy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M. Ajmal Khan, Advocate.
A writ is not a remedy for enforcing contractual obligation. The dispute relating to the contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Contract Dispute - Interpretation of Clause 67 - [Clause 67 of the agreement] - A writ is not a remedy for enforcing contractual obligation. The dispute relating to the contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The agreement cannot be termed as a statutory agreement. Therefore, a dispute relating to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not be agitated in a writ petition under Article 226 and the dispute is a matter for adjudication only by a civil Court or in arbitration proceedings, if provided in the contract. The writ petitions filed by the appellants are not maintainable in view of Clause 67 of the agreement. Therefore, W.A.(MD).Nos.180 to 184 of 2010 and W.A.(MD).Nos.332 to 333 of 2010 are liable to be dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, leading Class-I Contractors with the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, filed writ petitions to quash orders extending their contracts and settle final bills. The respondents argued that the contracts were terminated as per clauses of the agreement and the writ petitions were not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute relating to the contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of Clause 67 of the agreement. Therefore, the writ appeals were dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of Clause 67 of the agreement and whether the writ petitions were maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ is not a remedy for enforcing contractual obligation. The dispute relating to the contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The agreement cannot be termed as a statutory agreement. Therefore, a dispute relating to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not be agitated in a writ petition under Article 226 and the dispute is a matter for adjudication only by a civil Court or in arbitration proceedings, if provided in the contract.
Final Decision: The writ appeals were dismissed as the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of Clause 67 of the agreement.
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
Writ Appeals (MD).Nos.180 to 184 of 2010 are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 23.12.2009 dismissing the writ petitions (MD).Nos.8549, 8552, 8550, 8553 & 8551 of 2009 respectively. The writ petitioners are the appellants in the above writ appeals. The writ petitions were filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents ending with the order of the first respondent in Lr.No.F.101/SDO/1/C&A/2006,Lr.No.F.235/SDO.1/C&A/2006, Lr.No.F.93/SDO.1/C&A/2006, Lr.No.F.109/SDO.1/C&A/2006 and Lr.No.F.201/SDO.1/C&A/2006 respectively dated 14.08.2009, and quash the same and directing the respondents herein to forthwith foreclose the Agreement No.DR/TWAD/No.25/2008-2009, No.DR/TWAD/ No.23/2008-2009, No.DR/TWAD/No.26/2008-2009, No.DR/ TWAD/No.24/2008-2009 and No.DR/TWAD/No.23/2008-2009 respectively dated 01.09.2008.
2. Writ Appeals (MD).Nos.332 to 336 of 2010 are directed against the common order of another learned single Judge dated 22.04.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.5422, 5423, 5420, 5419 & 5421 of 2010 respectively. The writ petitioners are the appellants in the above writ appeals. The writ petitions were filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents, ending with the order of the second respondent in Lr.Nos.230310-2/F.109 Rural Habitations/JDO 1/2010 dated 23.03.2010, Lr.Nos.230310-4/F.93 Rural Habitations/JDO 1/2010 dated 23.03.2010, Lr.Nos.230310-1/F.201 Rural Habitations/JDO 1/2010 dated 23.03.2010, Lr.Nos.230310-3/F.101 Rural Habitations/JDO 1/2010 dated 23.03.2010 and Lr.Nos.230310-2/F.235 Rural Habitations/JDO 1/2010 dated 23.03.2010 respectively and quash the same and directing the respondents herein to forthwith release the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner.
3. Since the issue involved in all these writ appeals are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
4. The brief case of the appellants are as follows;
a) According to the appellants, they are the leading Class-I Contractors with the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. The appellants were awarded contracts. In pursuance of the same, work orders were given to them and agreements were entered into between the appellants and the first respondent.
b) According to the appellants, they have completed the work as per the terms of the agreement except the erection of pump sets. The said work could not be completed since the same were entrusted to the contractors. In these circumstances, the appellants made representations to the competent authority, namely the first respondent, requesting him to foreclose the original agreement and to settle the final bill. On 30.05.2008, the first respondent foreclosed the original agreement and directed the second respondent to settle the final bill.
c) Pursuant to the order of the first respondent, final bill was settled by the second respondent. Therefore agreements were entered into between the appellants and the second respondent on 01.09.2008 for the purpose of erecting pump sets and other allied works. Thereafter, the appellants completed the work.
d) While so, to the shock of the appellants, they received a communication from the second respondent wherein the second respondent unilaterally extended the period of new agreement for a further of period of one year upto 31.03.2010, for which the appellants sent their reply. Thereafter, the appellants were served with orders passed by the first respondent rejecting the request of the appellants stating the orders of extension of agreement passed by the Executive Engineer is in conformity with the terms of the agreements. Subsequently, the second respondent passed orders once again extending the contract up to 30.11.2010 without any notice to the appellants. Challenging the said orders passed by the first and second respondents, the appellants have filed writ petitions.
5. According to the respondents, the contract wa
