Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12547
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J
S.Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Pris – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.2267 of 2025
Mr.Issac Mohanlal Senior Counsel, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader
A writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a remedy for enforcing contractual obligations; disputes must be resolved in civil court.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - The petitioner challenged the cancellation of a tender for supplying raw materials to prison industries, citing involvement in a criminal case. The court emphasized that a writ is not a remedy for enforcing contractual obligations and that disputes should be resolved in civil court. (Paras 6-8)
(B) Contract Law - Enforcement of contractual obligations - The court reiterated that disputes arising from contracts involving statutory bodies must be adjudicated under ordinary contract law principles, and not through writ petitions. (Paras 14-16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a successful tenderer for supplying raw materials, faced cancellation of the tender due to a criminal case involving alleged malpractices. The petitioner contended that he had no contractual obligation to maintain records, which was rejected by the court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable as the dispute was contractual in nature and should be resolved in a competent civil court.
Issues: The main issues included whether the writ jurisdiction was appropriate for enforcing contractual obligations and the implications of the criminal case on the tender.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a writ is not a remedy for enforcing contractual obligations and that disputes should be resolved in civil court when alternative remedies are available.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned cancellation order passed by the 1st respondent dated 22.01.2025 with a consequential direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to supply the raw materials to the 2nd respondent as per tender awarded by the 1st respondent in vide proceedings in No. Ma.C.Pa/ 42400/IC2/ 2023-38 dated 04.07.2024.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the successful tenderer in the tender conducted for supply of raw materials for prison industries for the year 2024-25 and the petitioner has been supplying the raw materials to the second respondent without any default and the tender period comes to an end on 31.03.2025. While being so, a case in Crime No.15 of 2024 registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai Detachment against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 167, 409 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Pursuant to that, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 26.12.2024, for which the petitioner also submitted his explanation on 31.12.2024. On consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was issued with the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 cancelling the tender.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Semalaiappan vs The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and others reported in 2010 (6) CTC 27 . The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents also filed a typed set of papers and also the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.
4. On perusal of the typed set of papers filed by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, it is seen that the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai, issued proceedings dated 10.04.2017, banning the business dealings with the petitioner for a period of five years, for the delayed submission of samples and non supply of raw materials in time, which affected the production of prison industry. However, the petitioner being the successful bidder, the first respondent, issued the proceedings dated 04.07.2024. However, some malpractices have been done by the petitioner and others and hence, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.15 of 2024, since the petitioner prepared certain bills as if having purchased cotton tape from KPM Textiles for the value of RS.9,51,542/- and also prepared for supply of card board, calico, white paper and other raw materials to Central Prison, Madurai. Pursuant to that, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 26.12.2024, for which the petitioner also submitted his explanation on 31.12.2024. On consideration of the reply sent by the petitioner, the petitioner was issued with the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 cancelling the tender, which was given to the petitioner.
5. On perusal of the counter affidavit, it is seen that the petitioner has involved in a criminal case with regard to supply of raw materials to prison industries and the respondents would state in the counter affidavit that the remedy open to the writ petitioner is to approach the competent civil Court. The contention of the petitioner is that he is only the tenderer for transport of raw materials to the Central Prison and he has no contractual obligation to maintain the records, which is not acceptable. Further, since the petitioner does not deserve for continuance of contract order and the petitioner is a proprietor of two firms, the impugned order is lawful and legally sustainable. The plea of the petitioner to supply of raw materials after involvement in a criminal case, is not feasible to be complied with. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the payment to the raw materials supplied to the prison authorities by the petitioner
