J P GATTANI Vs. DELHI POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition impugns the decision/order dated 1st May, 2009 of the respondent no.3 Dy. Commissioner of Police (Traffic), in the matter of separate contracts entered into with each of the seven petitioners of supply of cranes to the Delhi Police. THE petition also seeks mandamus directing the respondent no.2 Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic) to refund to the petitioners the amount deducted from the bills of the petitioners for the period from 1st May, 2009 to 30th June, 2009 on account of the decision/order dated 1st May, 2009 (supra). THE petitioners state that no copy of the decision/order dated 1st May, 2009 has been supplied to the petitioners.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioners is, that their separate bids for supply of such cranes were accepted in the year 2004 and agreements entered into with each of them for a period of one year; that the said agreements were renewed from year to year till July 2010; that under order/decision dated 1st May, 2009 a condition was imposed that the drivers and helpers to be provided along with the cranes should be the same whose name and proof of identity was furnished by the petitioners at the time of execution of the agreements in 2004. It is contended that prior thereto there was no such condition and the petitioners were at liberty to change the drivers and helpers by intimation to the respondents. THE petitioners contend that the renewal from time to time was on the same terms as originally agreed in 2004 and which did not provide any such restriction. THE petitioners thus contend that the restriction so imposed is in breach of the contract and the respondents acting on the said restriction refused to take service of the cranes with different drivers and helpers and on the contrary imposed penalty on the petitioners for non-supply of cranes with the drivers and helpers particulars whereof had been furnished initially and deducted the same from the bills of the petitioners.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners refers to Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107 to contend that writ petitions are maintainable in contractual matters also.