RESEARCH NOTE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A CONTRACTUAL DISPUTE IN

THE FORM OF A WRIT PETITION

 IS A WRIT PETITION THAT ARISES OUT OF A CONTRACTUAL

DISPUTE MAINTAINABLE AND ADMISSIBLE?
A writ is not the remedy for enforcing contractual obligations. A writ petition under
Art. 226 is not the proper proceedings for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law,
it is open to the party concerned to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for
appropriate relief for breach of contract. Ordinarily, a specific performance of a
contract would not be enforced by issuing a writ of/or in the nature of mandamus,
particularly when keeping in view the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963,
damages may be an adequate remedy for breach of contract or any ancillary issue.
This aspect was emphasised upon in the matter of Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of
Orissa [(2006) 10 SCC 236]. It is pertinent to note here that any discretion exercised
by the Court in this regard should be done in the furtherance of public interest. The
Courts in India have time and again dealt with the interference of Courts u/a 226 of
the Constitution in writ petitions that arise out of a contractual dispute or conflict. The
following is a short compilation of the same –
 State of Gujarat v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust [(1994) 3 SCC
552] - The Supreme Court not only held that a writ petition is not
maintainable in a contractual matter, but also held that no relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution is “available” in case of contracts which are
not “statutory” in nature. The Supreme Court has time and again thereafter,
elucidated upon the concept of a “statutory” contract.
 Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil [(2000) 6 SCC 293] - The Supreme
Court held that a dispute arising out of the terms of a contract entered into
by a statutory body, would also have to be settled by the ordinary principles
of contract law. It further held that the mere fact that one of the parties to
such a contract is a statutory body will not, by itself, operate so as to
exclude the ordinary principles of contract law.
 Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corpn. v. Gayatri Construction Co. [(2008)
8 SCC 172] – The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have
entertained a writ petition in a dispute which could have been settled by
way of the “in-house” remedy as provided for. However, the Supreme Court
 expressed its unwillingness to adjudicate upon the merits of the controversy
in that case, given the advanced stage of completion of work under the
tender, which formed the subject-matter of that dispute.

 Technologies International v. Union of India [(2015) 7 SCC 728] -  The

Court had determined that the law in this aspect has developed through
catena of judgments of this Court and from the reading of these judgments it
would follow that in pure contractual matters the extraordinary remedy of
writ under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked.
However, in a limited sphere such remedies are available only when the
non-Government contracting party is able to demonstrate that it is a public
law remedy which such party seeks to invoke, in contradistinction to the
private law remedy simpliciter under the contract.
 Union of India v. M/s Puna Hinda [MANU/SC/0601/2021] – The Supreme
Court held that although the high court's jurisdiction is wide, purely
contractual matters in the field of private law that have no statutory
substances are better adjudicated upon by a specialised forum agreed to by
the parties. The Court held that since the dispute consisted of highly
technical issues such as resurveys and the examination of contract
documents, such processes could be adjudicated by only arbitration and not
by the writ court as it did not have the expertise to adjudicate the complex
technical issues of this case.

 SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ENCLOSED IN A WRIT

The Court held, in the matter of Principal Secretary, Govt. of A.P v. M.
Adinarayana, [AIR (2004) 12 SCC 579], that the scope of judicial review, under
Article 226, cannot extend to the examination of the correctness of the charges against
a delinquent employee as it is not an appeal but only a review of the manner in which
the decision was arrived at. In essence, judicial review is directed, not against the
correctness of the decision but against the correctness of the decision-making process
as was held by the Court in the matter of State of U.P v. Dharmender Prasad Singh,
Maharaj [AIR 1989 SC 997].
 ELEMENT OF DUTY CAST UPON THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE
WRIT LIES –
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v.
Sunder Lal Jain [(2008) 2 SC 280] considered the principles on which a writ of
mandamus can be issued as stated in “The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies” by
F. G Ferris and F. G Ferris Jr. It was stated that a writ of mandamus will not lie where
the duty and decision is clearly discretionary and where the party has exercised this
discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction. The Apex Court referred specifically
to the following notes:

Note 187. “Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually

issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the
sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within
the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and
which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that
mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the
official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duly to
which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed.”
Note 192. “Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion,
the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty
presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or
neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal
remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function
of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute,
and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and Tribunals exercising public
functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be
imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law
duty.”
Note 196. “Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in
the sound judicial discretion of the Court, subject always to the well-settled
principles which have been established by the Courts. An action in mandamus is
not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on
one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and Judgment pronounced
thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance
is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the Court
may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned - an
interest which private litigants are apt to over-look when striving for private ends.
The Court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the
consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all
the surrounding facts and circumstances.”
Note 206. “.......... The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is
clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his
discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to
support his action.”