of Bihar & Ors Vs. Jain Plastics and
Chemicals Limited  Insc 617 (21 November 2001)
Shah & B.N. Agrawal Shah, J.
question involved in this appeal is whether the High Court ought not to have
exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
granting relief in case of alleged breach of contract.
law writ is not the remedy for enforcing contractual obligations. It is to be
reiterated that writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper proceeding
for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it was open to the respondent to
approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach
of contract. It is settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious
remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and
not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence of
alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue writ,
but ordinarily that would be a good ground in refusing to exercise the
discretion under Article 226.
the settled law, respondent filed CWJC No.3968 of 1997 before the High Court of
Patna challenging the decision taken by the appellants to deduct a sum of
Rs.15.24 lacs for the loss suffered, from the bills of respondent-Company while
making the full and final payment. That writ petition was allowed despite the
objection raised by the appellants that respondent committed breach of contract
and the Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction in such cases.
No.945 of 2000 was also dismissed by the High Court by its judgment and order
dated 11.1.2001. Hence this appeal.
short facts are that the tender of respondent-Company having its registered
office at Jalgaon, Maharashtra for supply of PVC Pipes and
fittings at Patna and Hazipur was accepted and an
agreement was executed on 22.2.1994. Estimated value for supplies was Rs.5,81,92,584.84
p. and Rs.7,37,27,421.96 p. at Patna and Hazipur
respectively. As per the say of the appellants, respondent- Company delayed the
supplies. By letter dated 2.4.1994, supply of PVC pipes and fittings was
suspended in respect of certain fittings.
for immediate use, some pipes were ordered to be supplied.
record, it appears that parties exchanged correspondence for a long period. It
was contended by the respondent - Company that the authorities have wrongfully
refused to return requisite road permits and other relevant papers and,
therefore, it could not supply the PVC fittings within stipulated time.
Finally, appellants terminated the contract on 10.12.1996 and purchased the
fittings at a higher price.
while paying the final bill to the respondent, the difference of amount which
was required to be incurred by the appellants was deducted.
preferred the writ petition before the High Court.
learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that the respondent company was
unable to supply the PVC fittings on account of failure or the refusal on the
part of the appellants to supply the road permits and that the company cannot
be faulted for non supply of PVC fittings. Hence, the appellants cannot realise
or deduct the extra money which they had to spend over purchase of the same.
With regard to the adjudication of tangled question of facts in writ
jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge observed: This Court has not in the
present case felt any difficulty in deciding the question of facts on the basis
of affidavit evidence, and I have not felt the necessity of evidence of a civil
suit in deciding the question of facts which is needed for disposal of the
present writ petition. Finally, the learned Judge directed the appellants to
make the due amount of respondent - company with interest at the rate of 6%, within
six months. The aforesaid order was confirmed in LPA.
view, it is apparent that the order passed by the High Court is on the face of
it illegal and erroneous. It is true that many matters could be decided after
referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits,
but that would hardly be ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract.
Whether the alleged non-supply of road permits by the appellants would justify
breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and
is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously
disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract
are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led
by the parties in an properly instituted civil suit rather than by a Court
exercising prerogative of issuing writs.
result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court
is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. It would be open to the
respondent to have recourse to other appropriate remedy.
AGRAWAL) November 21, 2001.