" u
IN THE HIGH CQURT 05' KMNATAM AT BANGAE~..(§R .E;'2.vv
DATED @313 THE.' 2831 DAY OF JULY ;'5;::€s§ :
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR, JUSTEC§;':.AJ}fi'A~§.GLEN;
WRIT PETITION NO.18_$~1,7/§%3§9{QM¥§§€:»s.}
BETWEEN : %
Upkar Mining Private Li:1iij;ed',L~.. h
A Gomgany regigtmfcad 1md€:'r.thr: "
Companies A<:t,4-},9'E5_6, _, "
Having its Reggl. at
No.28/40Q,i'R.'af.---Rbaigi,' _
931 Cross, 25¢-.VB'i6%;:I:, Ja},<ai'1gar_;'
Banga1r):*é?~"5;€}{) {f}1'I];'f, V'
Represévnted 1}¢:+1'r::?1},4'by'it_s"'vV--. __ - '
Managing Ditmztoi'. .. .PE'F1'I'IC9NER
;{B§z_ Afiv. for
. I __ 'M/S.Jt:'st__L_aw,
"Sz_'i;;$.SriraI1ga, Aév.)
_ Stat7<%:--Tr:aidfir1'g Corperation,
Goverfzitnent Company having
Kr: .£)fi'1c::éat 960.166:/2,
"'-13$ §i§".ai:1$ V&S8fl{§13I1ag8f§
. Biaxigfalmre --~ 568 £352?
Rsipreserzsécd. by 311:3
" "I'vE"aI';.ag5:':g Bimctaz". ...EESP@§'€§L3E1"€'E'
T1113 writ petition is filed under Articie 226 cf the
Ccmstitutiom of india with 3. praysr to declare: the afiztion
of respondent in not parfamnhag the TEITIIS Moi the
Aglficment dated 15,0′?*2008 vide AI1I1exum”€?{“‘~._as
Whuliy arbitrary’ and violative of Articie 14. L’ . »
This writ yetition coming on for-.
hearing, this day, the Court madgi~;ti”‘1(:- .fo11{‘_:wi,r1g:.,
OIZDER ‘ T
An ag1’&eme::1t was $1″-iztéred i:1:(3’VV.t:§:2txié=§<é:'13 tha V
petitioner and the r€S1bQrzdenf§"U;fé§':3.§;Q2.2(3Ci8*. Ffiirszzant
to a COII}.1"X111i3.iC8IiCiI1 ci'é:t.éici' '?;}I"1€. petitioner
conflrmeé its» .:..*£io OE'€ through
Nave {he respondent entsred
i};'1E.{} ..E)evi "£'1'a say that according tet) the
. V’ “-Apetiti:i0:1i:::’, ‘as pef””‘tjij’3.é d.i3:’e<::':;:i0r1 of {ha §'€':Sf3*Ofid€R{, {ha
s§';§§;p Ei€d 4G,8{}G MTS of iron are fines to €516
dés~§_Vgna,£er:'§L '.és §0t at Mangalare Port. $22': hewezver, the
"sgfasa ۤf.t}1@ petitioner ifs that he recaivaci iiziimaiiian that
-$13 gkfifiener was :0 gtzpgijx Qnly 15,038 B/ITS sf firm”: are
againat 433808 MTS, which had Egan tra1″:$p@r£:e’€.i.
V This wrii: patzition is filed far the foilawing refiefs: /J
,/ff”
fa) declare the actwkm af Respondent fin not
peijforming the terms of the Agreement
dated 1 5.0712098 —- Anrzexure ‘C’ as
whoiiy arbitrary and vioiative of Article?
(2:2) ciirect the Respondent to take
40989 MT sf materéal th.e_
of the Agreerrsenz dated t2QG;f3′., a.n…c:i«. ” A
pay the sarrze {Z3} }?ns§§””§,V_35Gi;’~: per
the petitizmer; V» ”
(6) direct the Ré%$ponciér;t–VA viii bf
Rs. 22 Iakhs . %.33 é:;{Lur?age
charges ..;’ncr;fréie:i” ‘=t. i:e Pegfifioner for
“”” ‘wétcfifig fifivate yard up to
d}é:2{fi”.}’ii?ffLe? sum from this
uL§.;:}z£e_uV5p fielivery cf materiai to
‘ ” ?e3pc23§ &ént,’V’
“A’1;¥§:é'<5.e1fs:t;,t£§,:*, a perusa} Gf thfi prayers wauid
CZ:=: a]:'iy diéé{:;§\§{slé that '£1133 petitiamzr proposes to enfarce
fizeéufieréizishiiéf the agaéniant dated 15.0'?2Q<){}8 and alsg
A V~ "f:o;:f' ' ciirestien in the F€'Sp*0§1é€3}'"it is take daiivery of
@3689 MTS sf ::1:3.£eriai as per ffifii ififlfifi cf ag*€&I1:er:tT
anci fzgrthstr for 3 fiir'3z:t.§.c::1 is $133 res;p::}:1de:1§ :0 ya}; a
311113 of Rs? 152 1314113 iiowards sifafimrgriage cmarges; etc. AK;
%"
3. Apparently, the prayer is in the nat?%;fg .j_:§§£
€3i”1f’C}Z{‘C€;E3{1€I}I. of the ageenient and also far
€136 am.0un’:. I am of the View tha€A»wthiAs V
where the pe’ti1:ioner’s claim .’
petitior; Lmder Articie 226 of Cpriéfitutiofi of
4. Mr.Naga1i1anq’ Véézmsal éfifieming
for the petitiimer press¢s..ir.i_¥;Q of the
Apex Court Ltd. and
anather Corporation
cf reperted in (200433 800
558. Enééeé has abserveci that if 3:216
facts “a’_§jI:”€’: d.isputE;%.,VViixevértheless if they are borne: out by
-._ti’ze’ ‘.recr}f:;i. -s:>4f–..,ot§1emvise, the Court can exercise it
ji%ii”*E$V’€;1-icEit)1;; ‘.”_’»¥1r1%iié;t* Articie 3226 of the Constitution of
-}Vi3t1di3.’. ‘ héfievar, the Apex Court has agairi Qbserved
V’ ‘2§h.9;:’a._§a£rii peiitien irzvoiving serieus disputad q”:.1aSi:im:1s
– é:;f iifxcis, which requi_:’eS €Z€})Z};Sid€I’a’¥;i(}fl sf avidénca which
‘°*.i;s 310: an recsrd, wifi net }”i(}1″”}.’IEaH}=’ be entertaimaci unciczr
Kkrticlé 225 of ‘€316 COI1Sfi’i’;£Ii.iOfl of Erzdia. Having regard
K
//
$5,-
to this clecision of the Apex Court, I am cf the View that
the quesficn of en3:er1:ai11i1″:g this writ petition w0f£;;h:¥_ i::r9t
arms.
.3. Ansther decisizm which ;£SWS¢’1;;gh: tog «preVs$’ed”‘.
into service is, the case of AFoble;4R’éscurc§s_
State of Orissa and anothérfepcrted .’: :: SC V
I 19. The Apex Coxlrt ‘has iffms:
“A ciistinction mdispumgg made
betlueezjr, threshold
of cg a Efiréigzclg» cantmct;
££§hefeiTa:L$’V.’i31AVV_f§ze fifxfier the Court’s scrutiny
tzgagid. Vibe ‘i–.$}fi%1;$’ive} it: the latter the
_C1o2.z;V?:’-«.V % rnzag é1~r_}t”..–“‘n€:rdir3.ar£1g.,: exercise its
.«,1,§:;$’cretic§.f1:;r::g;__fi;€p¢r:1<séictiorz cf judicial review,
, isfourfi to be violatizze cf}-irricie 24
1' fjigfistitution.
6.:- mind, the presant case wauié £33} in ‘me
‘A V’ ” V:1z’:;;t?a;~::§:’ c ét9g0Iy inasmuéh as it is the s;::€<:ifi<:: Case of the
— fgagfiitienar that there is a breach of iterztract. Hence, I
” Sf ‘$316 View that bath ‘aha dflfiifiifififi wozfid certainly
be a pointer ‘:0 the fact: that if it imvoiveg a disputed
z
s
/7
fl
question 0f fact and if there is a bréach of eGI:f:ra{:'{:, ;ft:i’:,e
Courts are ioath ‘£0 émtzrtain a *a?3i*it p€titio§~~-.I;;;£§é:* ”
Artie}-:-“3 226 of the Carzstitmtjorz of India.
Petiiion stands rejected.
Liberty is reserves} to; the ps:tif.i011€+r’ ‘7 .ha*§j’e
I’€CO’i,2FS€’: £0 any other remedy afiéélfiblg E0″ ‘:1: ‘
SPS