Dismissed

M/s.Devatha Samkshema Sangham v. TheSuperintending Engineer

Telangana HC16 Mar 2011WP/6802/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of a non-statutory contract between the petitioner and the State. Relying on precedents, it held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 would not lie in such cases, directing the petitioner to pursue civil suit or arbitration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty to avail common law remedies granted.

M/s.Devatha Samkshema Sangham Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6802 of 2011

¶3

Date:16.03.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Devatha Samkshema Sangham

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, Vijayawada and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Prabhakara Rao

¶11

Counsel for Respondents: Sri S.V. Ramana, for Sri O. Manohar Reddy, standing counsel for APTRANSCO

¶12

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in issuing letter dated 19.02.2011, whereby the petitioner’s agreement dated 01.08.2010 was terminated.

¶14

At the hearing Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of respondent No.1 in terminating the contract is illegal and arbitrary. I am afraid, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India would not entertain a writ petition filed questioning termination of a non-statutory contract. Ordinarily, the aggrieved party to a non-statutory contract is entitled to avail the common law remedies such as civil suit or arbitration, in case there is any such provision, for redressal of his grievance. (See Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of Biha r^[1] , State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. ,^[2] , National Highways Authority of India vs. Ganga Enterprises^[3] and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corpn. vs. Gayatri Construction Co .^[4] . ) Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶15

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the common law remedies as indicated above.

¶16

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.8459 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶17

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16^th March, 2011 GHN

¶18

[1] AIR 1977 SC 1496 [2] (1996) 6 SCC 22 [3] (2003) 7 SCC 410 [4] (2008) 8 SCC 172

M/s.Devatha Samkshema Sangham v. TheSuperintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Devatha Samkshema Sangham v. TheSuperintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Surya Waters Vs A.P Eastern Power Distribution Co-Ltd

Sathi Ammi Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs the Deputy Director of Fisheries

B.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs State of a.P., represented by its Secretary

Bharat Food Products, a Partnership Firm, Siricilla Road, Vs District Collector

Visakha Parisudhya Paniwarala Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation