Delhi HC Dismisses Bid to Restore 3 LPG Tank-Truck LOAs, Saying Disputes Over Delay and Notice Need Fact-Finding

The petitioner participated in a tender for bulk LPG transportation and received Provisional Letters of Acceptance for several tank trucks.

Respondent No. 3 later terminated the LOAs for three trucks and forfeited the earnest money deposit and caution money, citing failure to complete ownership transfer and obtain PESO licences within four months.

The petitioner asserted that the delay was beyond his control and that, for one truck, no show-cause notice had been served.

The respondents objected that the dispute was contractual and involved disputed facts.

A contractual dispute does not, merely by arising from a contract, exclude the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226; however, the existence of jurisdiction does not require the Court to adjudicate every contractual dispute in writ proceedings.

The nature of the dispute and availability of an alternative remedy are relevant considerations. Where resolution requires detailed fact-finding and examination of contractual terms and records, the Court may decline to determine the dispute in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner’s explanation for delay and his denial of receiving a show-cause notice were disputed by the respondents’ position and the termination order’s reference to a notice and reply.

Resolving these matters would require examination of the surrounding circumstances, service of the notice, compliance with contractual obligations, underlying records, and relevant contractual provisions.

The Court therefore considered the controversy unsuitable for determination through writ proceedings.

It expressed no opinion on the merits and left all issues open for consideration by the appropriate forum.