V.E. COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. RAJESH ARORA CO. SECRETARY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in W.P. No. 26934/2009 (GM RES) is before this Court in this intra -Court appeal assailing the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, while adverting to the dispute involved in the petition, was of the view that the same would constitute a civil dispute which requires to be adjudicated by a Civil Court. Accordingly, the Appellant herein has been relegated to the civil remedy. The Appellant claiming to be aggrieved by the said course adopted by the learned Single Judge has assailed the order.

(2.) SRI Rupinder Singh Suri, learned senior counsel along with Sri B.N. Prakash, learned Counsel for the Appellant while assailing the order of the learned Single Judge contended that learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that the Appellant has to approach the Civil Court. It is contended that there are no serious disputed questions to be decided in the instant case inasmuch as the terms of the contract are clear and pursuant to the same, when the vehicles have been supplied and the same is also being used by the second and third Respondent -Corporation, the money due to the Appellant cannot be withheld by them. The second and third Respondents are instrumentalities of the State and as such any arbitrary action on their part is open to review by this Court even in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel that the Appellant has not committed any default nor is there any breach of conditions at their end. The specifications in fact were changed by the Respondents themselves and thereafter, when ultimately the vehicles have been received by them, they are neither entitled to withhold the security deposit or the amount payable to the Appellant. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the matter on its merits.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel though mentioned certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately placed reliance on the decision in the case of ABL International Ltd. and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, JT (2003) 10 SC 300 to contend that a writ petition under Article 226 would be maintainable even when there are disputed questions of fact and in case where recording of evidence is required. A perusal of the said judgment would indicate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to the earlier decisions, has arrived at the conclusion that the maintainability or otherwise is not laid down as an absolute rule. The said decision in fact reiterates the position that the High Court having regard to the facts of the case has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. Having stated so, in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the matter involved therein merited consideration. In the said case, the facts were that the Appellant therein had the cover of risk from the Respondent based on the direction issued by the Reserve Bank of India and in the circumstances stated therein, the cover of risk by way of guarantee was invoked. However, in the instant case, as noticed, the transaction involved is a commercial transaction where several factual aspects require determination and as such it is not one such case where this Court would exercise its discretion to entertain the writ petition.