Dinabandhu Sing vs Union Of India & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Date of Decision: November 02 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010511352026
+ W.P.(C) 15695/2026, CM APPL. 73523/2026, CM APPL.
73524/2026
DINABANDHU SING .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Harshita Singhal,
Mr. Rishabh Choraria &
Mr. Vicky Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Puja Kalra, CGSC with
Mr. Deepansh Sharma, GP for
R1/UOI.
Mr. Naveen Kumar Raheja &
Mr. Shashi Shekhar, Advs. for
R2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the
following prayers:
“a. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction quashing/setting aside the Termination Order dated
30.03.2026 issued by Respondent No. 3, insofar as it terminates the
Provisional Letter of Acceptance dated 29.10.2025 in respect of
Tank Truck No. NL01Q4755, the same being wholly vitiated by
complete absence of any show cause notice and violation of the
principles of natural justice; and
b. issue a writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15695/2026 Page 1 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39
writ, order or direction quashing/setting aside the Termination
Order dated 30.03.2026 insofar as it terminates the Provisional
Letter of Acceptance dated 26.08.2025 in respect of Tank Trucks
BR01GH8798 and NL01L1926; or, in the alternative, remit the
matter to Respondent No. 3 for a fresh, reasoned decision after
affording the Petitioner an effective personal hearing and
considering the Petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2026; and
c. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction directing the Respondents to consider and decide the
Petitioner's representations dated 12.06.2026 by a reasoned,
speaking order, after affording the Petitioner an effective personal
hearing, within a time-bound period as this Hon'ble Court may
direct; and
d. pass any such other order/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.”
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner had participated in Tender No.
2400019435-HD-09050 dated 01.03.2025, floated by Respondent No.
2 for Bulk LPG Transportation by Road in the State of Jammu &
Kashmir for the period 2025–2030. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.
3 issued Provisional Letter of Acceptance dated 26.08.2025 in favour
of the petitioner in respect of 5 Tank Trucks, including trucks bearing
Nos. BR01GH8798 and NL01L1926. Thereafter, Respondent No.3
issued a second Provisional Letter of Acceptance (‘LOA’) dated
29.10.2025 for Tank Truck bearing no. NL01Q4755. The said letters
required the petitioner to conclude the sale of the truck including re-
registration and other statutory approvals within a period of four
months from their respective dates of issuance.
3. By way of the impugned letter dated 30.03.2026, Respondent
No.3 terminated the Provisional Letters of Acceptance in respect of
three Tank Trucks bearing Nos. NL01Q4755, BR01GH8798 and
NL01L1926 and forfeited the Earnest Money Deposit and caution
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15695/2026 Page 2 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39
money, observing that the petitioner had failed to fulfil its contractual
obligation of completing the transfer of ownership and PESO licences
within the stipulated period of four months from the issuance of the
respective LOAs.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent No.3 has
arbitrarily terminated the petitioner’s Provisional Letters of
Acceptance in respect of the said three trucks. The petitioner contends
that the delay was occasioned by circumstances beyond its control and
that its explanation furnished to the respondents was not duly
considered. It is further contended that, in respect of Tank Truck
NL01Q4755, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before
termination of the LOA.
5. Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondents have raised
a preliminary objection to the entertainment of the present petition,
contending that the controversy arises entirely out of the contractual
relationship between the parties and involves disputed questions of
fact as well as interpretation of the contractual stipulations.
6. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that it is well-settled that
merely because a dispute arises out of a contractual relationship, the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is not excluded. However, the existence of such jurisdiction does not
imply that every dispute arising out of a contractual relationship must
necessarily be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The nature of the
dispute and the availability of an alternate remedy are also parameters
which have to be considered by this Court.
7. In the opinion of this Court, the contention of the petitioner that
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15695/2026 Page 3 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39
the delay in completing the requisite formalities was attributable to
circumstances beyond its control raises a disputed question of fact.
Similarly, insofar as the petitioner's contention regarding non-receipt
of the show-cause notice is concerned, the impugned order makes a
specific reference to a show-cause notice and a reply thereto, whereas
the petitioner disputes having received any such notice in respect of
Tank Truck No. NL01Q4755. This aspect also raises a disputed
question of fact requiring examination.
8. Evidently, the rival submissions would require an examination
of the circumstances surrounding the alleged delay in performance of
contractual obligations, the explanation for delay furnished by the
petitioner, the issuance and service of the show-cause notice,
compliance to contractual obligations of the parties, etc. The
determination of these issues would necessarily entail a detailed
examination of the underlying records and the relevant contractual
stipulations.
9. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the controversy is not
confined to a straightforward interpretation of a contractual provision
but involves mixed questions of fact and contractual interpretation.
This Court cannot undertake a detailed fact-finding exercise to
determine the correctness of the rival positions in the exercise of its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction, particularly when the controversy is
capable of being examined in appropriate proceedings.
10. In view of the nature of the controversy and the disputed
questions requiring examination, the present petition is dismissed,
with liberty to the petitioner to avail of appropriate remedies in
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15695/2026 Page 4 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39
accordance with law.
11. Needless to state, this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the controversy, and all issues are left open for
consideration by the appropriate forum.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 2, 2026
“hkaur”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15695/2026 Page 5 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39