#writjurisdiction Archives

10 Jun

Supreme Court Affirms Jurisdictional Scope in Contractual Disputes: The Municipal Committee Katra Case

Blog, Supreme Court #agreement, #blogs, #contract, #JusticeB.R.Gavai, #JusticeSandeepMehta, #SupremeCourt, #writ, #writjurisdiction

Case Title: MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE KATRA & ORS. Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 14970-71 OF 2017

Dated on: May 09, 2024

Coram: J. B.R. GAVAI, J. SANDEEP MEHTA

Facts:

The case involves a dispute between the Municipal Committee Katra and Ashwani Kumar regarding a contract for supplying mules and mazdoors for transporting pilgrims to the Mata Vaishno Devi shrine. Ashwani Kumar, the second highest bidder, became the highest bidder after the original highest bidder declined the contract. The contract required 40% of the bid amount to be deposited within 24 hours, along with bank guarantees and post-dated cheques for the remaining amount. Kumar sought relaxation from this clause, but the Municipal authorities denied it, prompting him to file a civil suit. The District Judge granted a temporary injunction in Kumar’s favor, directing the Municipal Committee to issue the work order, which was later upheld by the High Court. Kumar began work on 10th May 2010, but later claimed losses for the 33 days prior to this date, filing a writ petition seeking compensation. The High Court directed the Municipal Committee to consider Kumar’s claim.

Issues:

Whether the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, was entitled to entertain a dispute which was purely civil in nature filed for claiming monetary relief/damages arising from fallout of contractual obligations.

Legal Provisions:

Clause-8 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT):

It states that the successful highest bidder, shall have to deposit 40% of the offered amount at the time of provisional acceptance of the offer by the committee immediately but not later than 24 hours from the time of acceptance.

Contentions of the Appellants:

The appellants, Municipal Committee Katra, contended that the High Court improperly exercised its writ jurisdiction to entertain a dispute purely of a civil nature involving monetary relief arising from contractual obligations. They argued that the respondent’s request to relax the bank guarantee condition in the tender was unjustified. They also maintained that the respondent had already been provided relief through a temporary injunction and subsequent orders which allowed him to execute the contract, thus making his claim for additional compensation for the delayed start period unwarranted.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The respondent, Ashwani Kumar, contended that the provision in the tender requiring him to provide a bank guarantee for the remaining contract amount was unjust and arbitrary. Additionally, he argued that the delay in commencing the contract, which started from May 10 instead of April 1 as originally intended, resulted in a loss of revenue for 33 days. Consequently, he sought compensation amounting to Rs. 71,06,276, representing the purported loss incurred due to the curtailed contract period.

Court’s Analysis & Judgement:

The Hon’ble SC analysed whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute of a purely civil nature, especially one concerning contractual obligations and claims for monetary relief. It examined the terms of the tender, particularly Clause 8, which specified the requirements for depositing the bid amount and providing a bank guarantee. The Court considered the respondent’s contentions regarding the alleged arbitrariness of Clause 8 and the loss suffered due to the delayed start of the contract.

Eventually, the Hon’ble SC upheld the decision of the High Court to entertain the dispute, emphasizing the importance of ensuring fairness and reasonableness in contractual agreements, especially those involving public authorities. It directed the appellants to consider the respondent’s claim for compensation within a specified timeframe.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta

Click here to read the judgement

8 Dec

In presence of an alternative remedy to appeal, a Writ petition won’t suffice in the court of law : Bombay HC

Prime Legal

Blog #alternative remedy, #bombayhc, #Legal News, #writjurisdiction, #writpetition

TITLE : Rahibai Laxman Lokhande & Ors. V State of Maharashtra

CITATION : W.P No 7400 of 2023

CORAM : Hon’ble justice Madhav J. Jamdar

DATE: 5^th December, 2023

INTRODUCTION :

The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 18th April 2023 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records in Appeal.

FACTS :

The contesting Respondents that the Writ Petition be not entertained in view of the availability of the alternate remedy. He submitted that there is Appeal provided under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

Section 247 provides that, an appeal shall lie from any decision or order passed by a revenue or survey office specified in column 1 of the Schedule E under this Code or any other law for the time being in force to the officer specified in column 2 of that Schedule whether or not such decision or order may itself have been passed on appeal from the decision of order of the officer specified in column 1 of the said Schedule: Provided that, in no case the number of appeals shall exceed two.

The Petitioners contend that the impugned order itself has been passed in Appeal and therefore, the Second Appeal is not competent under Section 247 of the said Code.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court held that Section 247 of the said Code very clearly specifies that two Appeals are competent and the Appellate Authorities are described in Schedule E.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed in view of availability of the alternate remedy of statutory Appeal under Section 247 of the said Code, with no order as to costs. It is clarified that the Petitioners can file the Appeal as contemplated under Section 247 of the said Code challenging the impugned order.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

7 Aug

Transfer Order Allegedly In Violation Of State Policy Cannot Be Challenged In Writ Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #allahabad, #allahabadhighcourt, #transferorder, #writjurisdiction

CASE TITLE: Amit Kumar vs. State of UP & 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 248 [Writ A No. 11797/2023]

DECIDED ON: 24.7.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble J.J. Munir,J

INTRODUCTION

According to the Allahabad High Court, a transfer order that is claimed to be issued against the State policy cannot be contested through a writ jurisdiction, as it does not affect any statutory rights. The court clarified that State policies are administrative in nature and differ from laws enacted by the legislature, which possess a statutory nature.

FACTS

The petitioner, a Senior Auditor in the office of the Director, Co-operative Societies and Panchayat Audit, Lucknow, U.P., was issued a transfer order in the name of ‘public interest.’ He challenged the transfer order because his wife, who is an Assistant teacher at a Government Primary School, was recently transferred to the same location to accommodate spouses at the same station as per the State Government’s transfer policy for 2022-23.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the transfer, which placed him 200 km away, was arbitrary and not in line with the policy. They contended that the wife’s recent transfer to the same location should protect the petitioner’s right to be transferred nearby as well.

However, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Govardhan Lal, emphasizing that State transfer policies are administrative in nature and distinct from statutory rules. Violation of such policies does not entitle government employees to challenge them in a court of law.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The Court made a distinction from the case of Ram Awadh Ram v. State of U.P. and another, which the Petitioner had relied upon. In that case, the transfer order was found to be in violation of the U.P. District Offices (Collectorates) Ministerial Service Rules, 1980, leading the Court to intervene. However, in the present case, as no violation of any statutory rule was proven, the Court declined to interfere with the transfer order. Nonetheless, the petitioner was granted the chance to join his new posting and present his concerns before the relevant authorities.

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani