Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3593 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Food Corporation of India & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Harmesh Chand
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/09/2006
BENCH:
B. P. SINGH & ALTAMAS KABIR
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.10392 OF 2004)
Heard counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
The High Court by its impugned judgment and order issued a
writ of certiorari quashing the order dated January 17, 2003 whereby
the contract of the respondent herein had been cancelled, and the order
dated March 30, 2003 by which the District Magistrate, Kapurthala
was directed to recover the amount of Rs.3,43,138/- from the account
of the respondent herein at Kapurthala. The High Court also issued a
writ of mandamus directing the appellant herein to permit the
petitioner \026 respondent to continue to work in pursuance of the
contract awarded to the respondent on October 5, 2002.
The contract was for a term of two years which has expired on
October 4, 2004.
The grievance of the appellant is that the High Court ought not
to have gone into seriously disputed questions of fact in its writ
jurisdiction. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) challenged the
action of the appellant contending that he was prevented by the
appellant from working the contract. This was disputed by the
appellant. It was submitted before us by reference to the record of an
earlier petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent
wherein his case was that he was prevented from working the contract
by the Truckers’ Union acting at the behest of the earlier contractor.
In any event, since the facts were seriously disputed by the appellant,
and no factual finding could be recorded without consideration of
evidence adduced by the parties, it was not an appropriate case in
which the High Court ought to have exercised its writ jurisdiction.
The parties could have approached a civil court of competent
jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
We agree with the appellant. Having regard to the fact that the
term of the contract has run out while dismissing the writ petition, we
direct that in case any dispute arises in future concerning the said
contract, and a court is called upon to adjudicate the matter, it shall
while recording its findings and decision act on the basis of evidence
adduced before it, uninfluenced by any observation made by the High
Court in the impugned judgment.
The interim order stands dissolved. We observe that any claim
relating to the period during which the interim order was in force, may
also be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance
with law, if required to do so, in any dispute in future between the
parties relating to the subject matter of this petition.
This appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to the costs.