Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 56671
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
TRAVANCORE ENVIRONMENT - RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 15861/2023
VINCENT RAPHAEL, GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.), P.U.SHAILAJAN, Alexander Joseph Markos, V.ABRAHAM MARKOS(K/354/1975), ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS(KAR/2314/2012), ISAAC THOMAS(K/571/2014), P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM(MAH/002141/2016), JOHN VITHAYATHIL(K/001877/2021)
Writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable for purely contractual disputes, which should be resolved in civil courts.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - The petitioner sought to quash the order dropping the Waste to Energy Project, claiming violation of natural justice and contractual obligations under Ext.P3 agreement. The court emphasized that disputes regarding contractual obligations should be resolved in civil courts, not through writ petitions. (Paras 8, 19, 22)
(B) Maintainability of Writ Petition - The court reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper procedure for adjudicating contractual disputes, as alternative remedies exist. (Paras 8, 19)
(C) Public vs. Private Law - The court distinguished between public law and private law obligations, asserting that purely contractual disputes fall outside the purview of writ jurisdiction. (Paras 19, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a company, challenged the decision to drop a Waste to Energy Project, alleging violations of the concession agreement and principles of natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner could not maintain a writ petition under Article 226 for contractual disputes, emphasizing the need for resolution in civil courts.
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the writ petition concerning the concession agreement and the nature of the contractual obligations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that disputes arising from contractual obligations should be adjudicated in civil courts, not through writ petitions, as they involve complex factual determinations.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J
The petitioner, which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, which had entered into Ext.P3 concession agreement dated 05.09.2022, has approached this Court in this writ petition, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondent No.1 quashing and setting aside the order as per Ext.P13 dated 20.03.2023 passed by the Minister Local Self Government Department, the 1st Respondent herein dropping the Waste to Energy Project at Munnar Grama Panchayath without notice to the petitioner holding that the same has been passed in violation of termination clause in Ext.P3 Agreement, without issuing notice to the petitioner, holding that the order passed is without any basis, which is irregular, arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of termination close as per Ext.P3 Agreement.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the order passed by the Minister KSIDC the 1st respondent herein, dropping the Waste to Energy Project at Munnar Grama Panchayath as per the alleged meeting held on 20.03.2023 on the question of excessive tipping fee and lack of quantum of Solid waste fixed as 20 tonnes per day for the Waste to Energy Project Munnar is not valid and binding on the petitioner as per Ext.P3 agreement executed by the petitioner as already the subject matter has been considered and decided by the government by a valid Government order as per Ext.P12 as advised by the State Level Advisory Committee (SLAC) constituted by the Govt.
(iii) Issue such other order, direction or writ as may be necessary in the ends of justice and in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) The cost of the above writ petition be allowed to the petitioner from respondents.”
(reliefs extracted as in the writ petition)
2. On 16.05.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 6 and the respective Standing Counsel entered appearance for respondents 2, 3, 5, and 7. Notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 4 and 8.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader, the respective Standing Counsel for respondents 2, 3, 5, and 7 and also the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
4. The reliefs sought for in this writ petition centres around Ext.P3 concession agreement dated 05.09.2022 executed between the Government of Kerala, represented by an authorised representative from the Local Self Government Department, the Kerala State Industrial Corporation, a company wholly owned by the Government of Kerala, Munnar Grama Panchayat and Devikulam Grama Panchayat, which are Local Self Government institutions under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, M/s.Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and the petitioner namely, Travancore Environment Resources Management Pvt. Ltd., for setting up an integrated Solid Waste Management Project by seeking private-sector participation on public-private partnership basis, for the area of Munnar and Devikulam Grama Panchayats. A perusal of Ext.P3 concession agreement would show that the Managing Director of the 5th respondent Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. has signed the said agreement for Government of Kerala, as an authorised representative from the Local Self Government Department.
5. During the course of arguments, on a query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first relief sought for in this writ petition (which we have extracted hereinbefore in the first paragraph) is a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P13 communication dated 03.05.2023 issued by the 4th respondent
