Contractors doing Government work - Maintainability of writ petition - It cannot be said in absolute terms that a writ petition is not maintainable in contractual matters including where the Contractors seek enforcement of the obligation on the part of the State top pay the bill amounts admitted by the State. There is public law element in contracts where State is a party, and it naturally follows that there is public duty. And above all, any State action is liable to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Essentially, the only limitation of the High Court is the self-imposed restriction.- Principles laid down. [State of Kerala and others Vs. T.V.Anil. 2002 (1) KLT 371 (F.B) = 2002 (1) KLJ 975. (B.N.Srikrishna (CJ) , K.A.Abdul Gafoor(j) & Kurien Joseph (J &J)]
Art.226 - Notice to enforce the contractual terms - Maintainability of the petition under Art.226 challenging the notice - The effort of the Court should not be of finding meant to pull down the shutters of adjudicatory jurisdiction, but to see whether it is possible to entertain the grievances. [Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Director, Co-operative Academy of Professional Education, 2002 (2) KLT SN 149 Page No.122. . M. Ramachandran (J)]
Merely because an offer is the lowest, it is not necessary to accept the same -other conditions to be looked into. [ Asian Techs Ltd vs. State of Kerala. 2001 (1) KLJ 983. K.K.Usha (CJ) & Kurian Joseph(J)]
Contractual matters - Whether any of the terms in the agreement is unconscionable of violative of Section 23 of the Contract Act is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court ? Whether there was consensus ad idem between the parties is a factual controversy ? Whether a particular agreement is vague or whether one party has understood the real meaning conceived by the other to avoid a contract in terms of Section 29 of the Contract Act is a matter to be decided by the civil court based on evidence to be tendered by the contesting parties. Writ Petition is not maintainable . [Woody's Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another, 2002 (1) KLT 277. (K.A.Abdul Gafoor (J)]
Parties to the contract cannot adjudicate upon a disputed questions of breach and assess the damages arising there from. [ Rambal Co. vs. Kerala State Science & Technology Museum . 2000 (2) KLT SN.77.P.73 ]
Tender - Past performance record of tenderers and their market reputation play an important role in deciding to whom the contract should be awarded . The expertise of the committee which evaluates the grant of contract is of utmost importance . [ Bridgeway Engineering Co.(P) Ltd. vs Southern Railway. 2000 (2) KLT 861. M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)]
Contractual matters - When the jurial relationship between the parties is purely contractual, for breach of any condition in the contract or for enforcing the rights there under or for getting redressal against recovery of amounts, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. Under such circumstances the remedy is to file a suit in the ordinary civil court. [Abu v. Kerala State Financial Corporation Limited, 1989 (2) KLT SN 67, Jagannadha Raju (J)]
Enforcement of contractual right - Non-supply of coal by a public sector undertaking on unreasonable grounds, which are illegal, arbitrary, capricious. High Court can interfere though such rights can be enforced in a Civil Court. [Mallikarjuna Chemicals v. Singareni Collieries Ltd., 1990 (1) KLT SN 41, Ramaswamy (J)]
In respect of non-statutory contracts between the parties, a writ cannot be issued to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple. [Joy v. Superintending Engineer, 1990 (2) KLT 146., K.A. Nayar (J)]
Awarding of contract -- The State or other
instrumentalities of State
have to deal its power with regard to the award of contract in accordance with
the principle enshrined in 14 of the Constitution of India -- Public interest
and natural justice should be the guiding principle.--Limits of judicial review
in the
matter of awarding contracts.
[Cambatta Aviation Ltd. & anr. Vs. Cochin
International Airport Ltd. 1999(1) KLJ
789. (A.R. Lakshmanan & S. Sankarasubban. (JJ)]. {for the original decision
of the single judge see AIR 1999 Ker 311}
Conditions of tender notification, quotations to be submitted by registered post - Mere fact that it was sent by registered post is not sufficient to reject it. [ Kerala Federation of the Blind vs . Chief Engineer . SN. 81.P.76. J.B.Koshy (J)]
