S KARUNAMBRAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P4 order reducing the commission due to the petitioners as illegal, unjust and wrong for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the commission to the petitioners at the rates prescribed in Ext. P2 revision including the arrears collected from the date of Ext. P2, and also for a direction to dispose of Exts.P5, P6 and P7 representations.

(2.) Petitioners are handicapped persons incapable of doing normal wage earning work. They have taken advantage of the benefit offered to them by the Government of India for running public telephone booth on a commission basis. For this purpose, they entered into an agreement. Ext. P3 is the proforma of the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the Government of India. The 1st clause of the agreement reads as under:

(3.) I am not unaware that in contractual matters this Court will not ordinarily probe into the merit of the case. But that is not a question of jurisdiction, but only a matter of expediency. In this case, the petitioners are all poor handicapped persons incapable of carrying on normal wage earning work and in such case, when this Court is satisfied that injustice has been done to them, the Court is not powerless to remedy the situation. In Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ( AIR 1983 SC 848 ) the Supreme Court held that if an agreement is entered into in performance of its statutory duty as in this case under S.7 of the Act, the Court is not powerless to enforce the same. In Para.12 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed: