The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus to continue a government contract, holding that when work is unsatisfactory, the proper remedy is a civil suit for breach of contract, not a writ under Article 226.
Writ under Article 226 dismissed; remedy indicated as a suit for breach of contract.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21887 of 2014
=========================================================== 1. Shri Arjun Pandit S/o Late Jageshwar Pandit R/o village - Navtolia Banni, P.O. Babubagicha via Mansi, District - Khagaria
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Land Record and Survey Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Collector - Cum - Settlement officer, Khagaria
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr Alok Ranjan Ms. Archana Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. SC9-Raj Nandan Prasad
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-03-2015
Since this Court cannot issue a mandamus to continue with a contract especially when the work of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, details of which have been already indicated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, the remedy for the petitioner may be a suit for breach of contract but not a mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reliance placed by the petitioner on a decision rendered in the case of Sujit Kumar Mishra v. the State of Bihar, reported in 2014 (3) PLJR 500 may not apply in the present facts and circumstances of the case because it is not a case that there was no reason for the respondent authorities not to consider claim of the petitioner for continuation of the contract. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.21887 of 2014 dt.23-03-2015
2/2
allegation so made has been denied and that allegation has only been made with an object of overcoming his inadequacy and incompetence. Writ is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the remedy in a case of unsatisfactory performance of contract under a government contract is a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether a petition relying on Sujit Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar can succeed where work was not satisfactory as per counter affidavit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sujit Kumar Mishra v. the State of BiharRelied on¶9
Sujit Kumar Mishra v. the State of Bihar, reported in 2014 (3) PLJR 500
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arjun Pandit
State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
Director, Land Record and Survey Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
Collector - Cum - Settlement officer, Khagaria
Incharge Settlement officer, Khagaria
Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh, Assistant Settlement officer, Khagaria
Ajay Kumar Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
