JUDGMENT These two writ appeals arise out of the order passedg""'i3y the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12727/2004...._""t}'i§l§'e£,i:"g_ 23/6/2007 and 3.8.2007 wherein the ieaifiied..Singi.e allowed the writ petition and quashed the ecrn'muniC'af!Q.0: dat§d'*~.p 14.10.2003 and has dnected the drespondentefi/s) iayeore
Minerals Ltd., to supply the ba’ia4_nee Fines at
the rate which was preyailing .0/;(iIflr’ev:»fi.’iing the writ
petition and has furthéeifaidgiretttetlhA.w’r–lt”v–hpetitioner to pay
interest on Rs.40 from 14.10.2003
till the date that revised rate shall
not carry any inter!est.V ‘V K 0 0 it
2.1. The the case leading upto these
applegalyiwgitria.re;fere’npe tovflthe rank of the parties in the writ
Z _ petition -are;-a s’ fo’i’-:«ovwsV:e~ . V V
2.2. Ali’l1.F’.Vl_\io..;u£..’2A”/’27/2004 was filed seeking for quashing of
dated 14.10.2003 issued by the respondent
-petition and for directir\:;’/the respondent to honour
Iron Ore Fines from Subbarayanahalli Iron Ore Mines, Sandur
Taluk, Bellary District and petitioner has so far lifted only
28,688.860 MT of Iron Ore Fines. In the meanwhile, to the great
shock and surprise of the petitioner, the respondent issu.e:d.._:Oa.._
letter dated 14.10.2003 unilaterally reducing the quanti.t§y.’oii~i’I.rj:on _
Ore Fines agreed to be supplied by themrespon’ti’e’nt’_~to’:the
petitioner from one lakh MT to 50,000 ontihereason'”t:h–aAt'<::_'i
Subbarayanahalli Iron Ore Mines is fac':'~n_Vg lot'-of' prob'lve'rrjs…_,fro.m VA
Forest Department, same, the
company is not in a,- quantity of Iron
Ore Fines to the extent of
advance amount' and to cancel the
remaining quantitiys,_VIinrnVed'iVatveiy:,'..'i'on receipt of the said letter
issued responderit:.V,L:_n,i.I:atera|ly reducing the quantity of
the iron'or'e~fine,s'fro.rri"one Iakh MT to 50,000 MT , the petitioner
Zfwgrote to'.thVe,~–.respo'n"de'h.t'requesting the respondent not to reduce
the quantity" .un.i,Vla'teral|y and brought to the notice of the
res.p'on.dent'0–that the petitioner has already entered into a
lniiiliv'-giithiiiits foreign buyer and that serious hardship would
caused by such reduction. However, the respondent did not
\5'
respond to the said letter. It is further averred that in view of
the promise held out by the respondent, petitioner entered into
contract with foreign buyer and in view of the unilatera,l.__act'fondle.
the part of the respondent in reducing the quantity lose it
fines agreed to be soid, the petitioner has'suffered'._finahcial loss
and Bank had sanctioned financial facilityuvtoiaV_xsum.'af"Rs;4'}é.S.,,iV"
crores for a maximum period of.z45 t'imev..wben the
initiaé purchase order was "bye?Vthlejfgetgitioner on the
respondent for supplygvone Fines, there
were oniy ten lthelllllrespondent had
agreed to supply-a.h,o'ut"1;i3::;ia_ki:.:l$iii'Ao'i'ijrorriore Fines. In view of
the very there was no restriction
whatsoever in theVV'm_,oveme.n't'Vof for taking delivery of Iron
OrevV,.-Fignes Subba'u=ay_a__r1ahalIi Iron Ore Mines and the
responderjtiib,as_S!:arted__to supply Iron Ore Fines to about 43
:{o_t,her purcVha.sers)'c.ont'riactors at a higher price than what was
ag.ree.j with thtelpetitioner. In view of the increase in the number
oif~ibuy:ers, therevfllwas heavy rush. The number of vehicles to take
hcfithie material also increased thereby causing rush in
..aVV._'t!'l._€3 movement of vehicles and because of this, the respondent
\'/*'
price and therefore, the impugned communication is liable to..i__3e
quashed as sought for in the writ petition.
4. The respondent filed statement of objections.coriteiniding av” i
that the writ petition is not maintainaible j;the’:4,petlt–ion,er.,,_.of
complains of breach of contract which has to” workeidoiut injgau”
suit and the same is not amenable this
court under Articles 226 and India. It
is the petitioner who has ‘AA’oiV>..’contract and
supply of Iron Ore Fir_i’Ves’jw.as of Iron Ore
Fines and due to the Department, PWD,
MOEPCD, the one lakh MT of iron
ore fines to the _:w.rit therefore restricted the
supply of ironpre “iriiirespect: of the amount received from
the”Vj._petitio’ne’r to the valtuflewof Rs.4O iakhs and therefore, the
_impugne.d:Vo-rder,:”is,ujust.i,fied and does not call for interference in
f’the’Vv*.irit peti-t_ionV,> ~ if
_Addltio.r.t’al statement of objections is filed by the
at”i.:’,-respon,dent–».contending that the letter of intent was issued
sub;iect..toEthe condition that iron ore fines wouid be supplied at
“R
10
the rate of Rs.100/- PDMT stating that on the basis of the
request letter made on 5.8.2003 50% of the value was to-“be
paid before lifting the second half installment of V.
quantity and that the duration for ali these transacti_:onis’h-was 0
ninety days from the date of receiving
Admittedly, petitioner has not Paid va.itLJf?._gofi;p:eV”:aVi’io’tted
quantity before 90 days and vthge petiit’io.ri_er””h_as total
amount as indicated by him’ only on
28.8.2003 which is thesoizo respondent
has suppiied 47,79?;’2:’i_0V of._iroii..ore :fi_:nesHon different dates
and the baianceq’ua’Vn~ti’t’y:’:o3f«20–2V.Si..Zi0′ be supplied and
having regard to from forest department,
PWD and environrnental the respondent was not in
a position iiakh.» MT of iron ore fines as per the
|ette:?x_Qf;int.ent.__’andp°therefore, the respondent–Company has
:fd.eA_cVigded toié.restr.ivct–“.tjhe.i=guantity offered to be supplied, amount
_of.._advance p’ai.d'”by.’the writ petition and the speciai action has
been: t.a’i<enli'to other persons also to whom letter of intent has
nz'A'"-»-efbleien'-issued."Additiona| statement of objections was again filed
'flit:-\,/pgthewrespondent reiterating the averments made in the
K3»
11
additionai objections statement and producing letter which has
been issued in respect of other purchasers restricting the
of iron ore fines and in the event the petitioner is giv .
sought for in the writ petition, the same __w.ou_id h_a\/e””a’_jserio’ug
effect on other persons in respect of wh’o’m;’_’ais;o th_e*
intent has been modified and theigrespondvent:colmpa._ny-….has
reieased iron ore fines to Oth€F:’DUf’ChElSéVl’S._b1;l.t onl’y”inVv_res;5ect of
those who have paid the amount_1’and.v.?eiea’sied,the quantity of
iron ore fines on diffetent theVi?efor:e;’;«Vthe impugned
communication is justi”fie’d:v.a–i-id.’does’-nQt”_s’uffer’ from any error or
iliegality as to ca-Ill-Vfoir’in.teri7er.en~cVe-.iVn petition.
6. Learned for the petitioner argued
reiterating the-vayerr4ne.nts”mad’e in the writ petition and learned
couinsel”‘apVp”earing “fogr theflmrtespondent argued reiterating the
I_avermentsimadefin” ttiie:’.1objections statement and the additional
ob”jectionsAstate_me_nt before the learned Single Judge and the
“i’earncd”‘*SAingie..Judge by order dated 3.8.2007 held that even in
oF–.contractual matter writ petition can be entertained
are not in dispute and further held that the reduction
\.§»’
12
of quantity of iron ore fines agreed to be supplied from 50000
PDMT to 8860 PDMT and enhancement of price from
PDMT to Rs.3S0/-PDMT was not justified and the
couid not have unilaterally reduced the.quantity.Vavt”the””ra’te
which was prevailing as on the date of filing
and further held that since the writi’pe’titVi%oher- p_:Ei’idiiithe
balance of Rs.4O iakhs being the vaiuVe–..oif”gS_O’0QO writ
petitioner should pay the said at 6% from
14.10.2003 till the date_:of.__payn*ten”trandi««.th.exdifiierentiai amount
of revised price shall if there wouid
be any dispute _.re9?lVl’€l:i’ng1–It:hV.e in Marcn,2004 i.e.
the date of filing of Director of Mines the
same shall be pl”ac_4ed,V “t:h’e4Vt)irector of Mines and the
Director price taking into account the
respon_dent—comgApanyjfs,rate and the Mines and Minerais Trading
QCgorporaltionis’ra’te”.’and§;;’accordingly, disposed of the writ petition
d7’irecti–rig the”pet*ition’er to pay the amount within two weeks from
‘ogi=t.t_neV”‘receipt of the order and/or demand notice and
‘within one week from the date of receipt of the
it’ll”jeanfiounVt’s’,”lthe respondent shall issue the lifting order and shali
\:5
13
aiso facilitate the lifting or iron ore by the petitioner. Being
aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge reg.a’i*d:’ifng”~._
the direction issued to the respondent, the respo.r’iden,t:’iias
preferred WA.No.1951/2007 and the v.~:rit.._4pet’_i’tViovn”er]’
aggrieved by the direction issued by the °Sirig.ié’
the impugned order in so far as it re|’aVte’s…to the ‘to
deposit the amount of Rs.40 ‘_.Iai<hs from
1410.203 tiii the date of that the price
for suppiy of 50000 PEDVIS/iff iron 'prevailing on
the date of has preferred
WA.2012/2007:… L ii
7. We have counsei appearing for the
appe||ant~writ petitiionevr counsei appearing for
the respond.e;f3t’viri~ the writ p__etit.ion-M/s. Mysore Minerais Ltd.,
appearing for M/s. Mysore Minerals
submitted iearned Singie Judge was not justified in
‘enftertai-hing thewrit petition in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of
co’urft’ags:t’he matter pertains to post contract period and the
“to? whether there was breach of contract was disputed
\(,3
21
unilaterally reduced to 50000 MT and therefore, there is dispute
about the contents and interpretation of the letter of intent’Va’n~d”‘–.,’
aiso about the breach of contract alleged by respective.–parti,es§.f’ A *
14. It is clear from the letter of that t~he-:safi:d’«!et,ter’VV
of intent was valid for ninety days from thedate of:,.’re:’ceiptlV
delivery order. One iakh MT of +650/a””‘gi,rade iron._Voref’.fin’e,sHwas
agreed to be supplied at thefate o§ifrie’.f:,’oo”;;..,,Ppivi*rf’in’ei’uding
royalty, forest permit charges, if any
excluding loading chargesgtanq iéo is concerned,
50% of the allotted” be paid as advance
within seven of””‘letter of intent dated
18.8.2003 and remaining value should be
paid before iifting oi’secoVn~.dfAnaif’:of installment of the allotted
quaritifty.,and,t.,h*o\ifvt:;-var, dura’t*i*o”n” was ninety days from the date of
Petitioner has made payment of Rs.4G
on way of four demand drafts for Rs.2G
‘V,-fai<'_i'is,_'R.s.9 |ai
22
payment of the value of balance 50% of the iron ore fines
agreed to be supplied as per the letter of intent.
15. The scrutiny of the material on record wotiid it
show that since there was probiem inj’the’w_rni’ning fa’rea:’i~n’
Subbarayanahalli Iron Ore Mines by forest cie_pia–r_tment,_-v_ii?WD.
environmentai authorities, the respon:cl’ent
50000 PDMT of +65% grade are *.fineVs”.–.._l~iowéver;”}every
effort was made by the respondent fines on
different dates as refeiffed statement
referred to above 50000 PDMT of
+65% iron the value of the
same comes to:”R.s.?i0 baiance of Rs.40 iakhs
value of theyremaininyg’ of +65% grade iron ore
fines””i~1a_s beendepo’s’ite-d«’by the writ petitioner cannot be
disputed’ and_tn..¢re;”is:’dispute between the petitioner and the
:ires,pondentV_on thetsaitcfl question of fact as to whether the said
_.ain’iouant_y»was payabie within 90 days as the period for which the
of iintent was put in force or at the time of lifting 50000
if iron ore fines as per the delivery order can be decided
\?j>
24
fact and interpretation of the clause in the contract, the parties
have to work out their remedy before the competent civil court
and cannot be granted relief in exercise of the writ jurisdiction:’j’o_f””–_
this court and this court cannot substitute the con’L;racty:”.the
contract in terms of the contract as ordered’ byHt’h”e-elfifiairnedg
Single Judge.
17. It is clear from the reasor:in”g.’of thegiearfiizeds:Sin’g’Vlje
Judge himself that even as per the finyd’ing.’Ve_g:iv’en._by mm, the writ
Detitioner had not deposited Rsriibl for the vaiue
of 50000 PDMT in siiifgle Judge has
observed that the be compensated by
awarding 6% date of payment.
when once thev:’l’ea’i’ned held that the writ petitioner
has not deposited the value for 50000 PDMT in
200_3}’~thAe S_ing.le”}ud.evcouid not have granted any reiief
to the-,w.rit’ on the said finding itseif the writ
.3tpetJi.tioner.wfotjld entitled to any relief as sought for in the
_ _vv’_i=~itV_petiption.”Fnrtijieyr, the learned Singie Judge having found that
g_uefstAiofn”-of supply of iron ore fines at the rate of Rs.100/-
\3»5″
25
PDMT as per the letter of intent would not arise and could not
have ordered that the supply of balance quantity shouid be made
at the rate prevalent on the date of the writ petition. The ie4a..rned..V_
Single Judge ought to have considered as to whether _
breach of contract on the part of the petitioner or the”i*esjpond:enAt it
and as to whether the said contentions canibe ig-on’euii’into.in it
petition or party should be relegatedvto-competent’ci’:JViIV’i’céouVrt
working out remedy in respect of contracttiiengtered’ between
the petitioner and the respondent? _
18. In any viewof’ the the contract
could not be changed |.ea§_mie’d_Si_ng_le_3’udge and the said
contract could substituted’. fresh terms of the
contract as cione b’y:_ti’ie: ‘i’ear.ne»d44v_iSingi’e”Judge and therefore, the
learned Single Jud’g.9:y¢as -no*tv’ju.stified in entertaining the writ
peti_t4ion_V_anl.d’§’~:.aEI_iAowVingltithe. ____ writ petition by compeiling the
respo’nden.t”‘to_s.u’ppVI’yé::’5Q000 PDMT of iron ore fines as per the
:iiie.t_ter of intent and.V–“p__er1i’nitting the petitioner to deposit the value
g’ol<.._t_he.V_saici"Soloed PDEVIT though without considering as to
halV'i~n«g found that there was breach of contract on the
M
26
part of the writ petitioner and writ petitioner was not entitled to
any relief in the writ petition. In any view of the matter, igtis
clear that the learned Single Judge was not at all
going into the disputed questions of fact as perlthe’:.A_i.r~iy,al%3
contentions of the petitioner and the respondent, and”o.ug*h,t._;t”o’__
have relegated the parties to civil courtto workout th,’e?ir.reri’1edy.”< it
if the party suffered any loss or de'm:a;ge1duetsl.brea,erioi
contract as alleged by the writ J' V
19. In a similar matter, Awhereirl._trl.erc§~.lrlias’El.’–modification
of the letter of reis_pond’e:nt:’V.’he~rein–M/s. Mysore
Minerals Ltd., we of the learned
Single Judge it interpretation of
contract on disputed’ cannot be gone into in the
writ petition and paratiesv re.lVega.ted to the suit as per separate
judgrnenizfiii l/viii Appeal i$iet{275s/2005. Accordingly, we hold
,_that by the learned Single Judge is
lVunsu’stainat>’i~e ar3d’th.?eAsame is liable to be set aside and the writ
‘p’etii:i,onfn:_ ligableto” be dismissed.
\»»~’>_
20.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
27
Accordingly, we pass the following:
0 R D E R
Writ Appeal No.1951/2007 is allowed.
Writ Appeal No.2012/2007 is dismhesedgyyliy i
The order dated 3.8.2007 lpaséépdll byyme Ah
learned Single
No.12727/2004 isvset aside a_nd””wrEt petitiorig
No.12727/2004 is it is
made clear .’-[ha-_t_ A ‘petition
will not work out
its :E;ii;, law in the
condpeteynt V can any observations
made ir~..,uthisiorfder” pertaining to the contract
the’=pe_titvioner and the respondent
‘ ll'”ahal!__n~ot«vi.inf!.uence the said competent court to
relief sought for by the writ
p’etit’io_n.exr to work out its remedy regarding
‘contract between the petitioner and the
\»–‘>>
% w_e5 Vi’-f’.F2J.S..t:A’ no
Z A’ ‘ _ii<sv/snb/n1';/iinn
28
respondent and the said proceedings shaii be
decided independentiy on the basis of
evidence adduced by the parties and
being influenced by any of the’iobse-‘fva_tiorivs_
made in this order. I I V l
ustice
In7dex:–Y{e”s/No .