Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79234
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J
M/s.J.K.Traders – Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Pris – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.3371 of 2025
Mr.Issac Mohanlal Senior Counsel, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General, Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader
A writ petition is not a suitable remedy for enforcing contractual obligations, and disputes regarding contracts must be resolved in civil court.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - The petitioner sought to participate in a tender despite the pendency of an FIR against him. The court held that a writ is not a remedy for enforcing contractual obligations and disputes regarding contracts must be resolved in civil court. (Paras 6-7)
(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, not through writ petitions. (Paras 14-16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a successful tenderer for supplying raw materials to prison industries, faced cancellation of his tender due to involvement in a criminal case. The respondents argued that the petitioner had engaged in malpractices, leading to the FIR and subsequent cancellation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s plea to participate in future tenders was not feasible due to his criminal involvement and that the appropriate remedy lay in civil court.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner could participate in future tenders despite the FIR and the appropriateness of using writ jurisdiction for contractual disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a writ petition is not suitable 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 seeking for a direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate the tender to be conducted by the respondent in future, without citing the pendency of FIR.
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 06.01.2025. On consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was issued with an order dated 20.01.2025 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 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 bills and vouchers as if they have purchased cotton yarn tape from Sri Kumaran Traders, B.Komarapalayam, Namakkal District and Suviseshan Ruling Book Binding Industry, Madurai and there is no details as to the mode of transport, mode of delivery, quantum of articles and place of delivery to show the authenticity of transaction. Pursuant to that, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 26.12.2024, for which the petitioner also submitted his explanation on 06.01.2025. On consideration of the reply sent by the petitioner, the petitioner was issued with an order dated 20.01.2025 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, 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 is being settled by the concerned authority subject to the availability of budget provisions.
6. A perusal of 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, and the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:-
“14.It is a settled principle of law that a writ is not a remedy for enforcing contractual obligatio
