Writ Petition Raising Disputes Arising Out Of Purely Contractual Obligations Cannot Be Entertained: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ petition raising disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained.
The court said that a relief sought for damages “by no stretch of imagination” could be a subject matter of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court set aside the Jammu and Kashmir High Court's judgment, which entertained a dispute filed for claiming monetary relief/damages arising from the fallout of contractual obligations clarifying that the tender bidder, having participated fully aware of the auction notice's terms and conditions, was estopped from questioning its legality or validity by way of a writ petition.
The bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed, “The relief which was sought by the respondent in the writ petition was purely by way of damages. By no stretch of imagination, such relief could have been subject matter of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The quantification of the damages would require entering into disputed questions of facts and hence, the High Court ought to have relegated the writ petitioner(respondent herein) to the competent Court for claiming damages, if so advised.”
"Law is well settled that disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained by the High Court in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.", the court added.
AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan represented the appellants, while Sr. Advocate Rakesh K. Khanna appeared for the respondent.
After the Municipal Committee Katra had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the supply of mules and labourers for transporting pilgrims from Katra to the holy shrine of Mata Vaishno Devi, the respondent became the highest bidder and was offered the work in question. However, the respondent failed to comply with certain conditions of the NIT.
The High Court, in its judgment, entertained the respondent's claim for damages, a decision that the Supreme Court found to be without jurisdiction reiterating that High Courts cannot entertain disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations in the exercise of their extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.
Referring to the established legal principle of 'nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria,' as established in Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, (1996) 4 SCC 127, the Court stated that no one was permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of their own wrong to gain a favourable interpretation of the law.
The Court noted that the bidder went on to file a civil suit to avoid full compliance of the auction notice, even though he had “accepted the same with open eyes.”
“Once the respondent-writ petitioner had participated in the tender process being fully conscious of the terms and conditions of the auction notice, he was estopped from taking a U-turn so as to question the legality or validity of the terms and conditions of the auction notice. By dragging the matter to litigation, the respondent himself was responsible for the delay occasioned in issuance of the work order,” the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the order of the High Court and allowed the appeals.
Cause Title: Municipal Committee Katra & Ors. v. Ashwani Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 398)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan; Advocates Mirza Kayesh Begg, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar, Argha Roy, Ojaswini Gupta, and Ruby
Respondent: Sr. Advocate Rakesh K. Khanna; Advocates Satish Solanki, Sunil Kumar, Md Shahid Anwar, Aditya Pushkal Khanna, and Ramya Khanna