eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

ACADEMY FOR STENOGRAPHY, MORENA,DIR- BHADORIYA SIR TYPING MPHC JUNIOR JUDICIAL ASSISTANT

created Jan 22nd 2022, 10:26 by mahaveer kirar


4


Rating

399 words
0 completed
00:00
Aforementioned stating the aforementioned broad proposition of law in M/S Bio Tech Systems (supra), it was also added that it cannot be held in absolute terms that a writ petition is not maintainable in all contractual matters seeking enforcement of obligations on part of the State or its authorities. The limitation in exercising powers under Article 226 in contractual matters is essentially a self-imposed restriction. A case where the amount is admitted and there is no disputed question of fact requiring adjudication of detailed evidence and interpretation of the terms of the contract, may be an exception to the aforementioned general principle.In a given set of facts, where the State or its instrumentalities are parties to a contract, they would be under an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably, which is the requirement under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such a situation where the instrumentalities of the State act unfairly, unjustifiably, unreasonably or arbitrarily in discharge of contractual obligations, the same would be held to be violative of the constitutional guarantee embedded in Article 14 and the aggrieved party cannot be precluded from invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor the court would be denuded of its power of granting proper reliefs.While considering the question with regard to maintainability of a writ petition in such matters, it was held in ABL International Ltd. And Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. And Others that in appropriate cases, not only a writ petition against a State or instrumentality of State arising out of contractual obligation would be maintainable but the consequential relief of monetary claim would also be entertainable. In the case at hand, it is evident that there is no dispute relating to the amount due and payable to the petitioner. The instructions received by the learned Standing Counsel clearly indicate that the balance amount has not been paid for the reason that necessary funds have not been made available by the State Government so far.Once the petitioner had performed its contractual obligations under the work order and the amount due is admitted, we find no justification on part of the respondents not to make payment. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to ensure that the amount due and payable to the petitioner is released in its favour within a period.

saving score / loading statistics ...