##PAGE1## ##PAGE2## ##PAGE3## ##PAGE4## ##PAGE5## ##PAGE6##

[2026:RJ-JP:9066] (6 of 8) [CW-16910/2010]

claims. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Joshi

Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7

SCC 728, has held as under:-

“55. Law in this aspect has developed through catena

of judgments of this Court and from the reading of

these judgments it would follow that in pure

contractual matters the extraordinary remedy of

writ under Article 226 or Article 32 of the

Constitution cannot be invoked. However, in a

limited sphere such remedies are available only

when the non-Government contracting party is

able to demonstrate that it is a public law remedy

which such party seeks to invoke, in

contradistinction to the private law remedy

simpliciter under the contract. Some of the case law

to bring home this cardinal principle is taken note of

hereinafter.

56. Significantly, in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree

Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti

Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani [(1989) 2

SCC 691] as well, this Court made it clear that if

the rights are purely of private character, no

mandamus can be issued. Thus, even if the

respondent is “State”, the other condition which

has to be satisfied for issuance of a writ of

mandamus is the public duty. In a matter of

private character or purely contractual field, no

such public duty element is involved and, thus,

mandamus will not lie.

69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid

principles has to be understood in the context of

discussion that preceded which we have pointed out

above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar

to the maintainability of the writ petition even in

contractual matters or where there are disputed

questions of fact or even when monetary claim is

raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the

High Court which under certain circumstances, it

can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under

the following circumstances, “normally”, the

Court would not exercise such a discretion.”

(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 04:58:49 PM)

(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:07:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:9066] (7 of 8) [CW-16910/2010]

18. It is also well established that while exercising jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not

sit as an appellate authority over administrative or disciplinary

decisions. The scope of judicial review is confined to examining

the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision

itself. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, held as under:-

“13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of

India, the High Court shall not:

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry,

in case the same has been conducted in

accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which

findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may

appear;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it

shocks its conscience.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

19. It is equally well settled that in matters of termination of

contractual engagement, the Court would interfere only if the

action is shown to be arbitrary, malafide or in violation of statutory

or constitutional provisions. In the present case, it is borne out

from the record that a show cause notice dated 22.07.2010 was

issued to the petitioner detailing the allegations relating to

irregular release of payments in respect of compaction works

under MGNREGA and the petitioner submitted his reply on

30.07.2010. The allegations against the petitioner pertained to

financial irregularities and improper release of government funds

in his capacity as Accounts Assistant and joint signatory to

(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 04:58:49 PM)

(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:07:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:9066] (8 of 8) [CW-16910/2010]

cheques. The petitioner was put to notice of the allegations and

was afforded the