Competent Service vs Lala Ram Sarup Institute of Tb and Respiratory Diseases

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner, in December, 2010 had entered into an Agreement with the Respondent, stated to be an autonomous institute under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of the Government of India, for providing manpower services. The term of the said Agreement was for one year from 27.12.2010 to 26.12.2011. This writ petition has been filed impugning the letter dated 18.08.2011 of the Respondent terminating the Agreement with the Petitioner in exercise of powers under Clause 17 of the Contract.

It is not in dispute that Clause 17 of the Agreement / Contract authorizes the Respondent to terminate the Contract with one month''s notice in writing and the Petitioner upon receipt of such notice is obliged to discontinue the work accordingly.

The counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Respondent has not given any reason whatsoever for termination. Reliance in this regard is placed on Clause 7 of the letter dated 27.11.2010 of the Respondent to the Petitioner offering the Contract to the Petitioner upon the bid of the Petitioner being found L1 in the tender process and as per which Clause, the Contract is terminable if the services were not found satisfactory. It is contended that there is No. allegations of unsatisfactory services against the Petitioner and thus the termination without reason is interferable by this Court in writ jurisdiction.

Though Clause 7 aforesaid entitles the Respondent to terminate the Contract upon services rendered being unsatisfactory but without assigning any reason. Moreover, the letter dated 27.11.2010 containing the said Clause stood superseded by the Agreement aforesaid of a subsequent date and as per Clause 17 of which the Respondent is entitled to terminate the Contract in its sole discretion and even without assigning any reason. Moreover, the nature of the Contract is not such which can be specifically enforceable. If the Petitioner has any grievance, the remedy of the Petitioner is to claim damages from the Respondent.

The interference in writ jurisdiction in contractual matters is even otherwise very limited and can only be when a public law element is entailed as reiterated by the Apex Court in Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. Vardan Linkers and Others,

The counsel for the Petitioner has sought to argue that an element of public law is entailed since No. reason for termination has been given. However, the obligation to give reasons has to be seen contextually and without their being any requirement in the Contract to give reasons, merely because the Respondent has in the letter of termination not given any reason would not entitle this Court to interfere. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi and Others, held that omission to record reasons is not necessarily illegal or violative of natural justice and depends upon the nature of enquiry and the effect of the decision on the rights of the person and attendant circumstances. As has often been said, the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances. In fact doubts have been expressed whether duty to give reasons is a part of the principles of natural justice.

The counsel for the Petitioner has lastly argued that only two months of the Contract remain and notice of the writ petition be issued to find out the reasons which prevailed with the Respondent to terminate the Contract. It is further stated that in another tender floated by the Respondent, though the Petitioner was again L1, the Contract was not awarded and a writ petition in that regard has been entertained by this Court.

However, the occasion for issuing notice of the petition would arise only when the Petitioner makes out a prima facie case. The Petitioner has also not pleaded mala fides of any officer of the Respondent in the matter of termination. The only case is of principles of natural justice having not been complied with but as aforesaid, there was No. such requirement in the Agreement. In the present case, the Petitioner having failed to make out a prima facie case and the other factors aforesaid being irrelevant, No. case of entertaining the petition is made out.

The counsel for the Petitioner at this stage relies upon paras 5&6 in Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur, . However, the observation therein were in the context of Section 3 of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 whereunder the decision was of a judicial / quasi judicial nature and the Court recorded that there was, under the said provision, an express obligation to give reasons. There is No. obligation in the present case which is of a Contract and when the Clause in the Contract under which the Respondent has acted expressly stated that No. reasons needs to be given. A power to deal with a contractual matter and a power of the statutory authority to exercise its statutory power in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties are distinct and different. Whereas reasons are required to be assigned in a case where civil or evil consequences may ensue, the same may not be necessary where it is contractual in nature (see Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, . The Courts in contractual matters have insisted on giving of reasons only where the action impugned is apparently contrary to logic i.e. say where the highest bid is not accepted.

There is thus No. merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.

11.No. order as to costs.

Dasti.