2007 (7) TMI 354 - SC - Indian Laws

Inaction on the part of the City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited ( CIDCO ) in not executing the agreement of lease with the appellant- company - Held that - Considering the nature of the controversy which is a recurring feature we direct that a committee be formed to sort out the differences between the Central Government and the State Government entities. The composition of such committee shall consist of the Cabinet Secretary of the Union;Chief Secretary & Chief Executive Officers of the concerned undertakings. As the matter is pending since long, we direct that the Committee shall be constituted forthwith to take a decision within 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the High Court appropriately dismissed the Civil Writ Petition regarding the execution of a lease agreement by a Government undertaking?
2. Whether a writ petition is a suitable remedy for contractual matters involving public bodies?
3. Whether the Supreme Court should intervene in disputes between public sector undertakings and State entities?

Issue 1: The appellant filed a writ petition against the City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) for not executing a lease agreement for a plot of land. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised in contractual matters involving government undertakings. The High Court emphasized the availability of alternative remedies, such as a civil suit, for such disputes.

Issue 2: The appellant argued that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition, citing previous judgments where writ applications were entertained in contractual matters. Reference was made to cases like M/s Popcorn Entertainment & Anr. v. City Industrial Development Corpn. & Anr. and National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises and Anr. The appellant contended that writ jurisdiction can be invoked in contractual matters under specific circumstances outlined in previous judgments.

Issue 3: The Supreme Court highlighted the need for establishing committees to resolve disputes between public sector undertakings and State entities. Citing cases like Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. v. Collector and Ors., the Court emphasized the importance of avoiding litigation between government departments to prevent wastage of public resources. The Court directed the formation of a committee comprising officials from the Union and State governments, as well as concerned undertakings, to address disputes promptly and efficiently.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court directed the immediate formation of a committee to resolve the ongoing dispute between the Central Government and State Government entities within four months. The judgment emphasized the significance of coordinating efforts between different government bodies to prevent unnecessary litigation and ensure effective resolution of disputes.