9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (5) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the plaintiff again an order of injunction was made on 10-5-72. A copy of the appellate court's judgment is Annexure 5. A civil revision was filed in this Court, a copy of which application is Annexure 6. This civil revision (No. 1125 of 1972) was allowed by a learned Judge of this Court on 22-1-1973. The injunction order was vacated. It is not necessary to refer to the letter of the Executive Engineer dated 19-1-1972 allotting work to one Karyanand Sahu. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that during the continuance of the injunction order he could not work and as soon as the injunction order was vacated by this Court on 22-1-73 he approached the authorities on 23-1-1973 for permitting him to complete the work, but they did not do it. On the other hand, by an advertisement published in the Indian Nation on 14-12-1972, a copy of which is Annexure 7, fresh tenders were invited including tenders in relation to Gupta Bundh. In this advertisement the earth work from chain 340 to 427 was also included. Tenders were opened on 4-1-1973 and ultimately a fresh contract was given to respondents 6 and 7. Thus the petitioner's grievance is that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to be executed by him under a new agreement as it was essential to be so done. It is again repeated in paragraph 13 that the cost of the execution of the work entrusted to the petitioner was to be met out of the Central grant for a different work i. e. Flood Damage Repairs to Gupta Bundh, the time limit of which expired in June 1972. The work which was given to respondents 6 and 7 was of a different kind and could not be entrusted to the petitioner, 3. Without examining the legality or validity of the stand taken on behalf of respondents 2 to 5 in their counter-affidavit I shall assume in favour of the petitioner that he was illegally prevented from completing his work under the contract (Annexure 2). Thus the State and its officers committed breach of the contract. I shall also assume in favour of the petitioner that he was not responsible for the delay caused in the execution of the contract. He was helpless in the matter because from time to time injunction orders were issued. When ultimately the injunction order was vacated by this Court on 22-1-1973 he rightly approached the authorities for permitting him to complete the work. In spite of assuming all these facts in favou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of mandamus, mere breach of contract cannot be remedied by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. If the petitioner is not entitled to get the breach of contract remedied by this Court it follows as a corollary that the contract given to respondents 6 and 7 which is much larger contract for execution of more works than the one given to the petitioner cannot also be quashed. The action or order, of giving contract to respondents 6 and 7 cannot be set aside by grant of a writ of certiorari as there was no duty cast upon the Governmental authorities while giving the contract to respondents 6 and 7 to hear the petitioner and then to give the contract. After they took a decision that the petitioner could not be allowed to complete the work, whether this decision be correct or wrong the contract could very well be given to respondents 6 and 7. It was not the duty of respondents 6 and 7 to investigate and find out whether the contract which was being given to them was after a justifiable order of refusal made against the petitioner in not permitting him to complete his work. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Union of Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was-- In our opinion, he could have done so in an ordinary case. The appellant is interested in these contracts and has a right under the laws of the State to receive the same treatment and be given the same chance as anybody else. Here we have Thimmappa, who was present at the auction and who did not bid--not that it would make any difference if he had, for the fact remains that he made no attempt to outbid the appellant. If he had done so it is evident that the appellant would have raised his own bid. This is a case which falls on the other side of the dividing line which though subtle is distinct in relation to contract cases. Here the petitioner's right flowed from the contract but then the grievance against the governmental authorities is not referable to breach of any statutory duty. Mr. Basudeva Prasad endeavoured to place before us governmental instructions defining the powers of the superintending and the Executive Engineers of the Public Works Department of the Government of Bihar. But, in my opinion, those instructions are mere executive instructions and are not incorporated in any statutory rule. In order to enable the State to enter into contracts with the citize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as of a public authority invested with statutory power. In Haridwar Singh v. Begum Sumbrui, (AIR 1972 SC 1242) the question for consideration was whether Rule 10 (1) of the Rules of Executive Business was violated. A coup was settled in that case firstly with the appellant before the Supreme Court but later on with the respondent. The order passed by the Minister of Forest was unsuccessfully challenged in the High Court, It was held by the Supreme Court that Rule 10 (1) was mandatory and it was violated. Hence the order was set aside. The question which was decided in Haridwar Singh's case does not fall for decision in this case. In Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, (AIR 1973 SC 964) it has been pointed out in paragraph 10. ..... in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. Here in the very nature of the contract in question the petitioner had no right to claim its specific performance. The statute did not impose any legal duty on the authorities concerned that if they thought that the petitioner shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
