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

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 450

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
S.Tirupathaiah – Appellant
Versus
The Singareni Collieries Company Limited – Respondents
Writ Petition No.22277 of 2015
Decided on : 10-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K VASUDEVA REDDY
For the Respondent: P SRI HARSHA REDDY SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO.LTDTSC/23829/2019

IMPORTANT POINT
Writ petitions are not maintainable in contractual disputes when an alternate remedy exists in civil court, as per the terms of the contract.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus – Forfeiture of Security Deposit and FSD amount – Petitioner sought to declare the forfeiture of amounts as illegal due to non-release of bills by respondents – Respondents justified forfeiture based on non-fulfillment of contractual obligations – Writ petition not maintainable due to existence of alternate remedy in civil court as per contract terms. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

(B) Contract Law – Jurisdiction – The court emphasized that disputes arising from contracts should be resolved in civil courts, and writ jurisdiction is not appropriate when an alternate remedy exists. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case: The petitioner was awarded a contract for sand supply but failed to meet the contractual obligations, leading to the forfeiture of the Security Deposit and FSD amount by the respondents. The petitioner claimed the forfeiture was arbitrary due to non-release of bills.

Findings of Court: The court found that the petitioner had an alternate remedy available in civil court and that the writ petition was not maintainable.

Issues: The main issues were the legality of the forfeiture of the Security Deposit and whether the writ petition was maintainable given the existence of an alternate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner must approach the civil court as per the contract terms, reinforcing the principle that writ jurisdiction is limited when an alternate remedy exists.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach civil court.

ORDER:

Heard Sri K. Vasudev Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :

    “… to issue a writ or order or direct ion especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus :

(i) to declare the action of the respondents in forfeiting the Security Deposit/EMD amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and FSD amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the contract executed by the petitioner in terms of work order No. 7600003245, dated 18- 05- 2010 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the Proceeding No.CRP/CMC/CT/C14090449/9586, dated :05-02-2013 and consequential Proceeding No.CRP/CMC/C1409O0449, dated 13-01-2015 issued by the 3rd respondent,

(ii) consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioner’s Security Deposit/EMD amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and FSD amount of Rs.50,000/- pursuant to the work order No.7600003245, dt 18-05-2010 issued by the 2nd respondent

(iii) and pass such other order orders as the Hon’ble Court m ay deem fit and proper in the circum stances of the case”.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was assigned contract for excavation, loading transportation and delivery of sand from Godawari river to KTK-I Incline for a period of two years in the year 2010. As per the work order, bills were to be released for every 10 days. However, the respondents have not released the bills even after lapse of three months and though the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 21.02.2011, the respondents failed to release any bills for the period from 01.04.2011 to 03.06.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner stopped supplying the material to the respondents. As a result, the respondents forfeited the Security Deposit/EMD of Rs.5,00,000/- and FSD amount of Rs.50,000/-. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents particularly relying on para Nos.9, 10 and 15, extracted hereunder :

    “9. In reply to paras 4 & 5, it is submitted that as per the Order dated 18-5-2010, the petitioner has to supply of 5,70,000/- CuM Sand from Kurudpally Sand Quarry of Godavari River of KTK.1 Incline of the Respondent Company. It is submitted that the performance of the petitioner in supplying the sand during the contractual period of two years started from 28.06.2010, is as follows:

a) Quantity of Sand warded: 5,70,000 CuM

b) Sand supplied form quarry to Bunkers : 75,732.241 Cum

c) Sand supplied from quarry to Yard : 45,943.059 Cum

d) Total Sand supplied to Bunkers & Yard : 1,21,675.300 CuM

It can be seen from the above that during the contractual period of two years started from 28-06-2010 and ended by 27-06-2012, the petitioner has supplied only 1,21,675.3 CuM of sand as against the awarded quantity of 5,70,000 CuM which is just 21% of the awarded quantity.

“10. It is submitted that the representations submitted by the petitioner for refund of EMD and FSD amounts, were taken into consideration and after critically examining overall circumstances including reasons submitted by petitioner, the Respondent Company came to a conclusion that the forfeiture of Security Deposit Amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and FSD amount of Rs.50,000/- in addition to levying of penalties as per terms of the order dated 18.05.2010 is appropriate and justified and accordingly a reasoned order was issued to the petitioner vide No.CRP/CME/CT/C1409O0449/9586, dated 5- 2-2013 intimating the forfeiture of EMD and FSD amounts in addition to levying of penalties as per the terms and conditions of the order dated 18.05.2010. The relevant clauses of the terms and conditions of the order dated 18.5.2010 are as under:

“4. The contractor should deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) in the office of Chief GM (purchase), towards as further se

      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