AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
The petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court challenging the order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the Uttarakand Tourism
Development Board. By the impugned order, the contract which was given to the petitioners earlier on 29.04.2017 has been cancelled on ground that
petitioners have not fulfilled their part of contract as stipulated in the contract.Â
Admittedly, the petitioners and the respondent i.e. Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board which is the instrumentality of the State entered into a
contract on 29.04.2017, whereby the petitioners had to supply certain equipments to the respondent in Dehradun and various other parts of the State,
which the petitioners have not been able to do. Consequently, the contract has been cancelled.
Admittedly, the contract has an arbitration clause and therefore, if at all, in case of a dispute, the petitioners have a remedy. In any case, this is a
contractual matter which involves commercial transactions between the parties and it is not a matter which can be looked into by this Court in a writ
petition.Â
Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has relied upon two judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, namely, Harbanslal Sahnia and
another v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and other, reported in 2003 (2) SCC 107 and Verigamto Naveen v. Government of Andhra Pradesh &
others, reported in 2001 (8) SCC 344.
In the case of Harbanslal (supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the remedy in a writ petition is not barred in all cases and
High Court may exercise its power in a writ jurisdiction in three categories of cases. First is where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights, second, where there is failure of principles of natural justice, and third where the orders or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or vires of an Act is challenged. In the case of Verigamto (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has said that where the decision making
authority exceeded its statutory power or committed breach of rules or principles of natural justice in exercise of such power or its decision is perverse
or passed an irrational order, the Court can interfere even after the contract was entered into between the parties and the Government and its
agencies.
However, I do not find that the present matter requires an interference as there is no such grounds as referred above which are available to the
petitioners in the present case.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed in limine.