Dismissed

Arunesh Kumar v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2017WRIC/69804/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable to enforce a non-statutory contract. The petitioner's remedy for cancellation of the contract lies in common law for breach of contract. The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Arunesh Kumar Vs U.P.S.R.T.C. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2017)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 69804 of 2015

¶3

Petitioner :- Arunesh Kumar Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Mangla Prasad Rai,Sheo Ram Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sheo Ram Singh, learned counsel for respondents.

¶6

Grievance of petitioner is that his contract has been cancelled. This writ petition therefore is for enforcement of contract for which remedy lies in common law and writ petition under article 226 of Constitution is not maintainable. In similar circumstances, in Bareilly Development Authority Versus Ajai Pal Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1076 , Court said as under:

¶7

"In view of the authoritative judicial pronouncements of this Court in the series of cases dealing with the scope of interference of a High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases of non-statutory concluded contracts like the one in hand, we are constrained to hold that the High Court in the present case has gone wrong in its finding that there is arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the appellants herein in increasing the cost of the houses/flats and the rate of monthly instalments and giving directions in the writ petitions as prayed for."

¶8

The Court said that if there is a dispute in terms and conditions of contract, remedy lies in common law and not by filing of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similar view has been taken in similar other authorities also. Where a contract is not governed by statutory provisions, it is well-settled that contract can neither be enforced nor one can escape liability therein by filing a writ petition.

¶9

Petitioner, therefore, has remedy in common law regarding alleged breach of contract but such relief cannot be enforced by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶10

In view of above, this writ petition dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

¶11

Order Date :- 7.12.2017 S. Thakur

Arunesh Kumar v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arunesh Kumar v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiv Bhan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bhola Nath Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Siya Ram and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Suman Devi Vs Additional Commissioner Administration

Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Others