NANIBEN DAISANGBHAI CHAUDHARI SMT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even when no right statutory constitutional contractual or fundamental of a citizen is encroached upon or violated simply because there is an allegation of arbitrary action resulting into administrative wrong and would it be proper for the High Court to exercise its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. This question has arisen in this petition in the background of the facts that follow.

(2.) The petitioner participated in in auction sale of plot situated at Gandhinagar held on 13/12/1985 The auction sale has not been confirmed and the petitioner has failed in appeal and revision before the revenue authorities. The petitioner prays that respondent Authorities be directed to confirm the auction sale and be further directed to issue allotment order for the said plot in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) It is an undisputed position that there is no concluded contract between the petitioner and the Government. In this view of the matter even a civil suit would not be maintainable for the prayer that the respondent Authorities be directed to enter into a contract and thereafter be directed to specifically perform the same. Assuming that there is a concluded contract between the parties then the matter being one pertaining to contractual rights and obligations of the parties civil suit in the Court of proper forum would be the proper remedy and not petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In a similar matter the Division Bench of this High Court has taken this view. The learned single Judge of this High Court while disposing of Special Civil Application No. 2412 of 1982 held that in the matter relating to contractual rights and obligations of parties petition is not entertainable. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 32 of 1982 (Vrajlal Shivlal v. Chanduji J. Dabhi & Ors.) against the aforesaid decision this Court (M. P. Thakkar C.J. as then was and A P. Ravani J ) decided on 1/10/1982 confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge and dismissed the L. P. A. While disposing of the L. P. A. the Division Bench relied upon the following decision of the Supreme Court: