The prerogative writ of mandamus is not available to enforce contractual obligations and Article 226 of the Constitution does not confer an alternative remedy to the usual remedy by way of suit.

These four appeals preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common judgment of Subba Rao, J., disposing of four applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve the same point and may be disposed of together. It will be convenient to refer to the facts in one of the applications, namely, W.P. No. 568 of 1953. The facts in the other applications are substantially identical.

The petitioners in W.P. No. 568 of 1953, namely, the Indian Tobacco Corporation, are a partnership firm carrying on business at Madras. In June, 1951, the Madras Government called for tenders for the distribution (by sale) of ammonium sulphate and superphosphate fertilisers in the State of Madras for three years from July, 1951 to end of June, 1954, from firms of repute and standing having depots and branches in such of the districts of the Madras State in which they desired to take up distribution. The petitioners were one of the firms which sent tenders. The Government accepted the tender made by the petitioners as well as the tenders by 13 other firms for distribution of the fertilisers throughout the Presidency. The petitioners were allotted the districts of Anantapur, Bellary, Cuddapah, Chittoor, Kurnool and Guntur for distribution. The contract was to terminate on 30th June, 1954, automatically, subject however to the condition that the contract was liable to be terminated earlier without notice if the Government of India decided to discontinue the Central Fertiliser Pool arrangement and throw open the fertiliser business to the trade, in which case the stocks received by the Government or still to be received by them under the Central Pool arrangement should continue to be sold by the tender firms according to the terms of the agreement until the said stocks were disposed of. The price at which the fertilisers were supplied by the Government to the tender firms was fixed as well as the price at which they had to be sold to the ryots. But these latter were so fixed as to allow the firms a commission of Rs. 15-8-0 per toll to cover their expenses and profit. This amount of commission was subsequently reduced in April, 1953, to Rs. 12 per ton. On 8th July, 1953, the Director of Agriculture, Madras, invited by advertisement in the newspapers tenders for the sale of ammonium sulphate in terms more or less identical with the tender notice issued by the Government in 1951. The petitioners alleged that tenders had been received from several firms and the Government were considering them for acceptance. The petitioners charged that as the contract with them subsisted till 30th June, 1954, invitation for fresh tenders was a breach of the Government’s contractual obligations. It was therefore submitted that the Court should issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the State of Madras to forbear from considering or accepting the new tenders called for by the Government by their notice dated 3rd July, 1953, published on 8th July, 1953, or doing any act in derogation of the petitioner’s right under the contract in their favour till the termination thereof on 30th June, 1954.

This and the three other similar applications were dismissed by Subba Rao, J., without even notice to the State. He made a short order thus:

“The petitioners’ case is that the Government is committing an anticipatory breach of-contract. If so he can have his remedies under general law. I do not think this is a fit case for issuing a writ. Dismissed.”

Mr. K.S. Sankara Ayyar, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the writ of mandamus was the appropriate remedy to which they were entitled in the circumstances of this case and that even if a writ of mandamus as such could not be issued directions could be issued under article 226 which would give the appellants the relief sought by them, namely, a prevention of the threatened breach of contract by the Government.

It appears clear to us that the prerogative writ of ma