Constitution of India: Art. 226 – Appellant-Municipal Council is running educational institutions – A resolution was passed for purchasing school furniture – Original writ petitioner no. 1 (respondent No.1) was declared successful bidder and work order was issued in its favour – However, on outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown in force, the State Government published G.R. dated 4.5.2020 providing that owing to Covid-19 restrictions impacting government finances, non-priority expenditure should not be incurred – Pursuant thereto, Municipal Council informed respondent No.1 regarding suspension of work order until further orders – Municipal Council cancelled the work order after obtaining report from the Education officer that respondent No.1 had not taken any further steps in regard to supply of furniture as per the work order and that since the supply of furniture was not urgent in nature – On writ petition, High Court held that respondent No.1 is entitled to make the supply in pursuance of the work order – Hence the instant appeal – Respondent No.1 submitted that they have already manufactured the goods which are customized and therefore, if the Municipal Council is not directed to lift the goods prepared/got prepared as per the work order, it would suffer a huge loss – This Court directed on 7.2.2022 that as the schools have restarted, the official of the appellant would visit the place where the manufactured goods are kept and identify the goods which are immediately required, at this stage which shall not be less than 25% of the total quantity manufactured – On inspection of the goods, the official found that the goods did not meet the requirement of the work order – Even respondent No.1 had admitted that goods were not available – Held: There are disputed questions of fact such as whether in fact the goods were manufactured as per the specifications or not – Nothing was on record before the High Court that goods were in fact and actually manufactured by respondent No.1, as per the specifications and the requirements of the Council and as per the work order – In absence of any evidence on record and there being disputed questions of facts, High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment directing the Council to continue the work order and accept the goods from respondent No.1 and to make the payments as per the work order – Even otherwise, no writ of mandamus could have been issued virtually granting the writ for specific performance of the contract/work order in a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India – Respondent No.1 ought to have been relegated to file a civil suit for appropriate relief of losses/damages, if any, sustained – Writ jurisdiction.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: By the impugned judgment, the High Court has issued a writ of mandamus virtually granting the relief of specific performance of the contract/work order. From the impugned judgment, it appears that the High Court was made to believe that the original writ petitioners had already manufactured the goods which are customized and as per the specifications and the work order. However, it is now found that there are no manufactured goods readily available which can be supplied to the appellant-Council. There are disputed questions of fact such as whether in fact the goods were manufactured as per the specifications or not. Nothing was on record before the High Court that goods were in fact and actually manufactured by the original writ petitioner No.1, as per the specifications and the requirements of the Council and as per the work order. In absence of any evidence and disputed questions of facts, the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order directing the Council to continue the work order and accept the goods from the original writ petitioner No.1 and to make the payments as per the work order. Even otherwise, no writ of mandamus could have been issued virtually granting the writ for specific performance of the contract/work order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The original writ petitioners ought to have been relegated to file a civil suit for appropriate relief of losses/damages, if any, sustained. Even otherwise on merits also the High Court has erred in setting aside the communication dated 18.05.2020 and 07.07.2020. The High Court has not at all appreciated the reasons for suspending/cancelling the work order till further orders. It is to be noted that the decision dated 07.07.2020 was taken pursuant to the G.R. dated 04.05.2020 which was necessitated due to Covid-19 Pandemic and there was a lockdown and the schools were closed and that the Council had no sufficient funds. Even the said decision was taken after calling for a report from the Education Officer in regard to the tender/work order issued to the original writ petitioner No.1 and the Education Officer informed that the original writ petitioner No.1 has not taken any further steps in regard to supply of material as per the work order. [Paras 8, 8.1][431-E-H; 432-A-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.