Back
2026 Supreme(Cal) 121
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
Tushar Kanti Roy - Petitioner
Versus
Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. - Respondent
WPA 19750 of 2022 With CAN 1 of 2025
Decided On : 30-04-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Sr. Advocate Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, Mr. Surojit Dasgupta, Ms. Arundhati Barman Roy, Mr. Asish Chowdhury, Ms. Uma Banerjee
For the D.V.C. :Mr. Dhrubo Ghosh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Swarajit Dey, Ms. Ajeyaa Chowdhury, Mr. Saptarshi Kar, Ms. Debsarati Das, Mr. Ayan Ahmed
Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to compel the specific performance of a commercial contract. State entities are not barred by promissory estoppel from revising contractual terms if public interest, such as the need to maximize revenue from natural resources, necessitates a shift to competitive auctioning.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Extent of powers - Inapplicability of mandamus for specific performance of commercial contracts involving disputed questions of fact - Doctrine of promissory estoppel held subservient to public interest and revenue maximization for natural assets. (Paras 10, 19, 25, 26)
(B) Contract Law - Public interest - State instrumentalities are not precluded from shifting to competitive bidding models when a byproduct, previously regarded as waste, attains significant commercial value - Balancing private contractual stakes against overriding public interest. (Paras 20, 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
A long-term standing agreement allowed for the collection of an industrial byproduct at legacy rates. Due to a material change in market conditions, the resource became a valuable commodity. The provider moved to shift to a competitive auction-based revenue model, leading to potential termination of existing supply terms. The supplicant challenged this move, seeking to enforce the archaic pricing terms through a writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the dispute was fundamentally of a contractual nature involving contested factual assertions and complex data regarding resource generation. It observed that the government has a duty to maximize revenue from natural resources in the public interest, which justifies departing from prior arrangements.
Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of a writ petition when an arbitration clause exists, whether promissory estoppel prevents the state from modernizing its disposal policy, and if the court should grant mandatory injunctions for specific performance in commercial disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against the state when public interest requires a change in policy, particularly when the state can demonstrate a legitimate need for revenue maximization. Furthermore, a court exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction should decline to order specific performance of a contract, relegating parties to appropriate civil or arbitral remedies where disputed facts exist.
Result: Petition dismissed; parties relegated to arbitration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractual history and evolution of fly ash as a commercial commodity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 2. impact of prior pil observations and administrative policy changes on existing agreements. (Para 5 , 6 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. maintainability of writ petitions involving contractual disputes and arbitration clauses. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 19) |
| 4. applicability of promissory estoppel versus public interest and revenue maximization. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. non-granting of specific performance under writ jurisdiction for complex factual disputes. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
Judgment :
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondents and each of them to continue the supply of fly ash to the petitioner as per the terms and conditions contained in the agreement dated 1st January, 2019.
2. The petitioner is engaged in the lifting and selling dry fly ash from various thermal power plants in West Bengal. The petitioner carries on business under the name and style of Satyam Sales. According to the petitioner, in the year 1996, the respondent no.1 had commissioned Mejia Thermal Power Plant situated at Durlavpur, Bankura (hereinafter referred to as the “MTPS”). MTPS is one of the coal-based power plants of the respondent no.1 and apparently is the largest power plant in terms of generating capacity in the State of West Bengal. Coal is one of the raw materials used in the power plant. Since, large quantities of fly ash is generated as a by-product, which is hazardous to the environment as would corroborate from the notification issued from the Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 14th September, 1999 read with notification dated 27th August, 2003 the respondent no.1 had made provisions for free of cost disposal thereof, and in the process as aforesaid entered into an agreement dated 29th May, 2007 with the petitioner whereunder the respondent no.1 agreed to provide 0 to 300 metric tons of dry fly ash per day from the Unit of MTPS. The agreement was valid for a period of 10 years from the date of signing the agreement. As per such agreement, though the dry fly ash was to be provided from the unit no.4, free of cost, the petitioner was required to pay Rs.3 per metric ton, towards administrative-cum-service charges.
3. The agreement dated 29th May, 2007 was later amended by an agreement dated 1st April, 2009. Under such amended agreement, the respondent no.1 agreed to supply 1000 metric tons of dry fly ash per day, free of cost to the petitioner from the Unit No. 4, 5 and 6 of the MTPS subject to payment of administrative-cum-service charges of Rs.1 per metric ton. Such agreement is valid for a period of 20 years from the date of commencement thereof i.e. 1st April, 2009. According to the petitioner, notwithstanding the above agreement being valid and subsisting and creating a binding obligation to the respondent no.1 to supply at least 1000 metric tons of dry fly ash to the petitioner, by a letter dated 20th January, 2017 the respondent no.1 requested the petitioner to participate in e-auction and purchase the fly ash. The petitioner did not agree to participate in e-auction. Following the same by a further letter dated 13th September, 2017, the respondent no.1 called upon the petitioner to pay enhanced administrative-cum-service charges for fly ash lifted under the said agreement at the rate of Rs.20 per metric ton. The demand was negotiated, on the basis of the discussion that followed between the parties, the agreement dated 1st April, 2009 was amended on 1st January, 2019. The amended agreement provided for payment of administrative-cum-service charges at the rate of Rs.6 per metric ton upto 1000 metric tons per day, and beyond 1000 metric tons at the e-auction rate prevailing at that time.
4. Incidentally, in and around July, 2019, a writ petition being WP12311(W) of 2019 was filed by one Bijay Kedia against the respondent
