9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court has already held that in matters pertaining to a state instrumentality, a writ may be maintainable in matters concerning contractual disputes in certain circumstances. While there is no bar on the maintainability of such writ petitions, the discretion lies with the High Courts as to whether to exercise the said jurisdiction or not. This Court has elaborately discussed the principles that must guide the High Courts while deciding whether to exercise their writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes between a State and a private party in a catena of judgments. No material has been placed on record by the Appellant to suggest that there was ever any problem with respect to the quality of coal being supplied by KEMTA to the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited (hereinafter, EMTA ) was selected to form a joint venture with the Appellant for the development of the mines, and the supply of coal to the said power projects. After setting up of the joint venture- Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Limited (in short, KEMTA ) by the Appellant and EMTA, all three companies entered into various contracts for development of the coal mines and supply and delivery of coal. 3. The above arrangement progressed without any dispute, until the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (in short, CAG ) submitted a report for the year ending March 2013, wherein it was observed that minimum quantity of coal rejects should be 10% per centum of the total production, valuing Rs. 52,37,00,000 (Rupees fifty two crore thirty se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re heard together by the High Court of Karnataka. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the said writ petitions and, inter alia, directed the Appellant to not initiate recovery from the Respondents solely on the basis of the CAG report dated March 2013 and held that the Respondents would be entitled to receive reimbursements for deductions made by the Appellant from the bills. 7. Aggrieved by the above, the Appellant has filed the present appeal by way of special leave Under Article 136 of the Constitution. 8. The primary submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant is that the High Court granted the relief without adjudicating the disputes between the parties or properly appreciati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia, (2015) 7 SCC 728] 13. However, we are not inclined to delve into the issue of whether the High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction was appropriate, due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The present matter pertains to a tender that was awarded by the Appellant to EMTA nearly twenty years ago, in the year 2002. The CAG report that appears to have been the starting point for the entire dispute between the parties is dated March, 2013, close to a decade back. In such circumstances, to even advert to arguments on the maintainability of the writ petitions would be unjust to the parties involved. 14. Coming to the merits of the appeal, from the facts, it appears that in the first instance, when the CAG report w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
