Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J
Global Services – Appellant
Versus
Indraprastha Gas Limited – Respondent
W.P.(C) 7184/2023 | CM APPLs.27969/2023 | 58654/2023 | 68502/2024 | 73233/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr. Ankit Siwach, Ms. Soumya Sannidhanam
For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Mehta, Ms. Divye Chugh, Ms. Prachi Kohli, Ms. Priya Wadhwa

A writ petition is not the appropriate forum to enforce contractual obligations or seek specific performance, particularly where the agreement is determinable in nature and there are serious disputed questions of fact. Disputes arising from private commercial contracts must be adjudicated through civil litigation for damages.

Headnote:(A) Constitution - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability against entities discharging public duties - While an entity might be amenable to writ jurisdiction due to the public nature of its functions, a petition cannot be entertained if the dispute arises purely from a private law contractual relationship. (Paras 32-37)

(B) Specific Relief - Contracts determinable in nature - Specific performance - A court exercising writ jurisdiction will not grant specific performance of a contract that is by its nature determinable; the appropriate remedy for wrongful termination of such agreements lies in seeking damages in a civil forum. (Paras 42-43)

(C) Judicial Review - Contractual disputes - Disputed questions of fact - Writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy for adjudicating complex factual disputes regarding performance obligations, contractual breaches, or the existence of a concluded, binding agreement. (Paras 39.1-39.2)

Facts of the case:
An entity sought to challenge the termination of its appointment as a facilitator for a natural gas utility site. The petitioner alleged the successful commissioning of the site and sought a direction for the execution of a long-term operator agreement. The opposing party argued that the petitioner failed to meet the conditions within the stipulated timeframe, the arrangement had expired through the efflux of time, and the matter constituted a private contractual dispute not fit for writ jurisdiction.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the entity performs an important public function, the specific issue involves a commercial contract. Because the matter involves disputed factual questions—such as whether the commissioning requirements were met and whether a binding agreement was ever concluded—the court declined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under public law.

Issues: The central issues addressed were whether a writ petition is maintainable to enforce specific performance of a contract against an entity discharging public functions, and whether disputes involving factual evidence regarding performance and contract termination can be adjudicated via writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A court will not exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce contractual obligations or to compel specific performance where the contract is inherently terminable, there are serious disputed questions of fact, or where an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy exists in civil law. The constitutional remedy of judicial review does not extend to substituting a civil suit for the enforcement of private commercial rights.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual context of the loi, its termination, and the resulting dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. petitioner argues for breach of contract and legitimate expectations. (Para 8 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
3. respondent contends contract is non-enforceable and discretionary. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
4. writ jurisdiction is applicable to entities performing public functions. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
5. writ courts cannot enforce specific performance for determinable commercial contracts. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
6. petition dismissed due to lack of merit in specific enforcement. (Para 45)

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing a letter/communication dated 11.05.2023 issued by respondent no.1/Indraprastha Gas Limited, whereby, the respondent no.1 formally ceased all relationships with the petitioner which existed in terms of a Letter of Intent dated 21.01.2020 (hereinafter referred as “ the LOI”). In terms of the LOI, the petitioner was appointed/engaged as a ‘facilitator’ for facilitating development of respondent no.1’s CNG facility site situated at Minto Road, Delhi.

2. The petitioner also seeks that the respondent no.1 be directed to execute a dealership agreement qua the concerned facility in its favour and further restrain the said respondent from engaging/appointing any other operator/third party rights thereof.

3. Vide a Note of Approval dated 10.06.2019, Company Owned, Dealer Operated (CODO) Model was introduced by the respondent no.1. Under the said model respondent no.1 inter-alia proposed to engage agencies/individuals willing to resolve dispute/s of respondent no.1 with the locals concerning lands which although already allotted to respondent no.1 for commissioning CNG facility/station, remained non-operational for over 6 months due to the said disputes. The relevant portion of the said Note of Approval reads as under:-

“This policy would also be applicable for lands which have already been allotted to IGL but are not operational for more than 6 months after allotment due to dispute. Any individual/agency offering to solve the problem put the station to operation will be awarded dealership for a limited period of 10 years at the discretion of management on recommendation of the panel.

At present following are the sites which are under possession of IGL but work has not commenced or being hindered due to disputes:

1) Minto Road - The site at Minto Road was allotted to IGL on 20th August, 2008 from land and Development Office. The possession of same was taken on 18th November, 2008 (Copy of same attached as Annexure - B). Since the time of possession the site was encroached by local slum dwellers. Various attempts of eviction were made but IGL was not successful. Accordingly, IGL took the matter to Hon'ble Delhi High court and the judgement was given in favour of IGL. Subsequently, after various attempts the site was evicted on 11.02.2019 with the help of Officials of Delhi Police and Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB).

However, when the construction started the anti-social elements from the local area have been disturbing the work time and again. IGL has not been able to work at the site properly due to such disturbances.

It is proposed to appoint a consultant for the Minto Road Site who can resolve the matter and enable IGL to construct the CNG Station. The advertisement would be on IGL website for a period of 15 days. If the consultant is successful and IGL is able to construct the CNG Station, the consultant would be appointed as a dealer.

2) Mangolpuri - The site at Mangolpuri was allotted to IGL on 30th August, 2017 from DUSIB Development Office. The possession of same was taken on 06th October, 2017 (Copy of same attached as Annexure - C). Since the time of possession IGL has been trying to commence the work at site. However, each time the construction activ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHISachin Datta, JGlobal Services – AppellantVersusIndraprastha Gas Limited – RespondentW.P.(C) 7184/2023 | CM APPLs.27969/2023 | 58654/2023 | 68502/2024 | 73233/2025

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J
Global Services – Appellant
Versus
Indraprastha Gas Limited – Respondent
W.P.(C) 7184/2023 | CM APPLs.27969/2023 | 58654/2023 | 68502/2024 | 73233/2025