'-.MANAGlI§iG DIRECTOR RESPONDENT
FROM THE RESPONDEIWS wmcn ULTIMATELY
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN
DATED Tms ‘rm 24th DAY 01? JUNE. “F L % u
TI-E HONBLE MRJUSTICE L 1s:ARA*z.AI¢A
WRITPE’I’I’I’ION xo.1s3%1%:/209?(r:;M..m»£s3- = %
Between;
1 M18 vxcrromr
A PAR’FNERSHI.FF_’IR’M
REP Bvrrspgsmajam .
SR! D KSURESH.
No.11/2, 21m mzgon,” %
NJHC QQMPLEX. “ii:
STH mun GARE’-?HIVNAGx%R”-..__ . ~
BANGALORE-9 M ‘ » ”
% V? . …PE’i’I’I’lONER
(BY 3121. L w§&..CHII§i:§t4fLP§D.A}’fYA, ADV.)
1 M13 wM¥sc::m:, MNERALS LIMITED
‘ A’c3~_c>v’:%._c:>15* E€ARBiATAI{A UNDERTAKING
H.m.NG ‘I’1″$-0″1’€?F’iCE AT NO 39
M cmona B5’-¥NGALORE~1
— REP BY §’rs’cHAzRMA:e &
‘A«jt_mfSR1.c GOWRISHANKAR, ADV.)
«ms WP FILED PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RELEVANT
RESULTED IN ISSUING NON-SUPPLY OF IRON ORE WASTE MUD IN»
TERMS OF THE LE’l”l’ER OF IN’l”§NT D’I’.12.3.2004 WHICH WAS
2
MODIFIED on 15.3.2006 AS PER H9
RESPECTIVELY. mmcr mm RESPONDENTS TO””$:U?E*LY
METRIC TONNE ore’ mom om WASTEAA»VMIJD.”‘ATVV’4’TI§§7 xRAV’1’E’._VOF5
RS.90[- PER mm IN TERMS-OF my £N1fEI§’i”§ DT.
12.3.2904 WHICH was MODIFIED ON’—A15b3.20(_)6,.’A.AND
INTERIM ORDER ‘:*o DIRECT SUPPLY
17.434 METRIC mamas opmon QRE.1_k’A_S’fE aft’ THE RATE
or RS901- PER mm IN’ 2*s;RMs -«f{fl}:1i.’43’.«.LE’i’l’ER or-‘ zmmrr %
D’r.12.3.2oo4 WHICH was MOD§.FfE-EDEGN
Th-is” in ‘B’ 3011])
before the Count V’ followirg:
The petition hw prayed for cnnection [
17484 metric ton of Iron Ore waste
muci per PDMT in terms ofbetter of Intent
1?2;I3/20o<:– wn1ch was mum on 15/3/2006. The
' petitioner for allotment of iron one waste
by the respondent and the petitioner was allotted
V " ore waste mud from both Subbaraymhalli and
iron ore mines. The petitoncr was allmed 95,000
PDMT by way of 3 Letter of Intcnts dated 26/12/2003,
T
3
19/2/2004 and 12/3/2994 of iron are watts mut__!;_’ét«’
Rs.25,, Rs.75/-and 123.90/~ per mm »
B1 and B2. Howevm-‘, the respondent ti
waste mud to the pefitionaer. Henee- V ._ pt 1″ :tiVo1t¢t’
petition.
the learned nouns:-1 f1;1*£If:iC;h€ ..
3- tetiumwr is that the
respondent ttagtsteted under the Indian
Companies At:t” it is ivy the State of Karnataka and
ntattge A”I*ti.Vc::v1_t__2___J.:2 ofthe Constitution. The impugned
£031, of the respondent in not supplying the iron
the rights guaranteed undw Article 14,
%tj.139%%(1.)%(g) conmtutton. The petitioner has paid
L A wntctt has been accepted by the tespondmt.
being a statutory authority ought to hava
% tm terms of letters of intent. me impugned actim of
the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of
law. The amount was aclcnarwlcdged by the rmpondent in
‘i
4
March, 2004 and even after so much of time iron
was not supplied to the petifionw
and loss to the petitioner. The *1
respondent is arbitrary and hostilgt ‘IV’b.c
upon the decision of this which
was disposed of on which xespondmt
preferred appeal in w% A came to be
dismiséed.
4. the respondent Sri
of objectiorm. The ieamod
counsel sj1broitool1._ tha3;’ is filed afier a lapm of 3
tho delay and Latches alone the writ
rejected. Further he has submitted that
o ‘m:-. writ peataonzshoz maintainable in View of farm tact am the
is question of that for which he has to
competent civil Court. In para 9 ofthe statement
‘of:j’_objcctio– n it is stated man: the price has been revised as the
have spiralod naflonally and hztemafionally and thafiom
the respondent is not in a position to supply the goods at the
T
5
agreed prices. It is submittw that the petition. is fisfit
andithastobencjectcd. L A 1
5. The ooxrhention of the ;)e1;itic:»;iFzé,?i*’:’i:-3
letter of intent entered into
should have supplied the agmed véafifié 1%
on its part is vioiative of Ijfovismns of
Consfitution of direction to the.
respondent to of intent are an
agreemant which is not a statutory
and firi the of the respondent
Though ..r¢s;§46i:ci¢nt.v”isA.a it is like any other individual
‘vagrfient with any private panics.
The’ enlzened into are the qumtion of facts
disputed, they are disputed quwfim of facts.
_ question of facts cannot be adjudged by this
Article 226 of the Constitudon and oonmquently
_ sought for by the petitioner cannot be issued.
1
6
6. The ti cmntmfion of the petitiozm’ tpt
tcrms enshrined in lettcrs of intent on
is violafive ofArticle 14 & mung) V
statutory obligations on the -_ thc’ Vt
contractual obligafions not be
violativc of Article 14 and 1a§”(i;)gg;t;1% 14 ._o ft31c constmmon
expressly providers arbit:I cm
the part ofthe does not arise in
the present of the parties in
the p1’cscnt:E_caseA out of a contract betwem
them. The under Article l9(1)(g) of me
xio by virtue of non performance
o’fobltigiatiio11.f_g$n of the respondent. In this case, the
rmpondcnt will not twin! attract
19″(t;.ug;,; the contention of the petitioner that the
violated Article 14 and 19(1)(g) also cannot be
‘.*”‘4″.upj1.éI<i;g H
The petitioner fuxther contends that the impugned
écfion on the part of the respondent is without authority of law,
1
7
illegal and arbitmly. To substantiate the same,
has not placed my matmial to hold that the
illegal, arbitrary and violates ‘ I
obligation between the parties is__
parties should comply the such an
obligation n%sari1y contract involving
leading of evidence .’.bOth e~auLana% Such an
exercise cannot
8. No idoiibe that in pursuance to
letters of «he sums of money in the
year 20045 . is also not disputed by the
éfiut so afier this length of time, there is no
of the respondent as per the terms of the
Tietters payment of money and receipt of the
‘ ” notvfn dispute, that itself does not five jurimiction to
V entertain a writ petition and gmnt rt-.-1% as prayed
1. raga. V V. ._
8
9. Petitioner drew my attention to the order
Court in w P No.48 144/2004 disposed of on 29/et.(:m5.ioiiimithis
case also the respondent is one and tho”sam_e7…A iti.
appears one and the same where
between the parties, there is tor thc
respondent and henw die pefition
approached this the impugied
action on the and dirt the
respondent petitioner. Against the
said order msmndmt preferred writ
appeal which’ dismissed. Hence petitioner
t_he’ enures to the benmt of the
pewter and circumstances are one and the
in the said petition to be extended in this I
.. gone through the said judment. In my
view, question of statutory obligation and
Veoiietittifional obligation are not discussed and they were not the
naatter therein and it is also not a question for
eonsideration whether conuactual obligations can be gone in the
Writ jurisdiction and decided as is held in DIVISIONAL FOREST
1
by .V ‘of’the contract, ifthc corxtract is capable ofwing
orthewrtymaysuefor damw. Sacha
a petition either for wecific perfonb or forj
” ” recoverimdamages. A:-igI1ttoreiieff£owmfi’omaco@’aet
9
OFFICER V. BISHWANATH TEA CO. LTD. (AIR 1981 1368)
which is extracted below: V
“2.1 It is undoubtedly true that the High Court can mtg
exiraordinmy jurisdiction a petition __te ” W
prerogative writs for any other
issued where there is executiveV.wt4_ion ilavzav 63*.” V’
even in respect of a tlV.1e’:a i:r.a.bzi_= bf
equality before law or equal of law.
can also file a 3a right under a
statute. Hm, mspotxdetu was referable
to nothing iebgb, néamly, clause 2 Part IV.
The a repgbfiilxction of pmviso to Rule
37 of Aémxii Rate Regulation but that
by itself is an gum-imz£bb:o that what the mpommt was
_ V doi11’g_iWassbA provision.
b?2;b2bA]()n ‘ 1;’ gt a breaw of contract is compxained of: 3
of such breach may we for spec1fi’ c
. onshnarily be cognizable bythc Civil Court. The Big
in its emwrdmy jurisdidtioa would not oufinaxily
hastobeciaimedinaciviIoo::rtwheu*eas1$forwecific
pe1fm’:nameofoemractorf<x':£unagmcm1ld.be4fi}ed.
'I
of the present mac.
‘ 1*0.%1:’ i :§ furt.hcr true mas; Axticie 225 of the Constitution
j no this Court. The State
could be challenged before this Court and also unda-
cinzumstarw this Court exwcisw such a discretionary
10
And in xuzcmmmm smen & ons. v. HA1u).AYAi;
BRAR&ORS. (AIR 1976 SC22!6)asfollow§:””‘ 4% x u
becaimeflisc1eaa’fivmac1osepH§§§&1:¢f..tin\#ri£:p§§fi§iathu
memially the to an
%w e.nIered.into ‘And the Co-
operative Bankg" mfamcanent of: binding % mam is that the enforce a comm qua
We jg£kiheu:i¢e amplitude of Article 226
and its injustice an cannot agave
that ordinary ooutse without even
. enfotcedunda Article 226″.
‘£i<:éi3c.t;: the said decision is of no help in the
"\
11
power and crztmtain contractual obi
obligations. In the present cm, the digp-‘ate
is of not a stamtory and oansfitmiorial 5
simplc contractual obligation 115
entertained.
For the fails and 1: is
accordingly ;,” bf this writ petition will .
not come “agitate their rights bdkxe _
shall not any efthe o made. in .
as expressed one way IX’ the other in. L
parties.
35/Ӥ..,
Edge