SEMALAIAPPAN Vs. TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD REP BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER SOUTHERN REGION MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Appeals (MD).Nos.180 to 184 of 2010 are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 23.12.2009 dismissing the writ petitions (MD).Nos.8549, 8552, 8550, 8553 & 8551 of 2009 respectively. The writ petitioners are the appellants in the above writ appeals. The writ petitions were filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents ending with the order of the first respondent in Lr.No.F.101/SDO/1/C&A/2006,Lr.No.F.235/SDO.1/C&A/2006, Lr.No.F.93/SDO.1/C&A /2006, Lr.No.F.109/SDO.1/C&A/2006 and Lr.No.F.201/SDO.1/C&A/2006 respectively dated 14.08.2009, and quash the same and directing the respondents herein to forthwith foreclose the Agreement No.DR/TWAD/No.25/2008-2009, No.DR/TWAD/ No.23/2008-2009, No.DR/TWAD/No.26/2008-2009, No.DR/ TWAD/No.24/2008-2009 and No.DR/TWAD/No.23/2008-2009 respectively dated 01.09.2008.

(2.) WRIT Appeals (MD).Nos.332 to 336 of 2010 are directed against the common order of another learned single Judge dated 22.04.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.5422, 5423, 5420, 5419 & 5421 of 2010 respectively. The writ petitioners are the appellants in the above writ appeals. The writ petitions were filed to issue a WRIT of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents, ending with the order of the second respondent in Lr.Nos.230310-2/F.109 Rural Habitations/JDO 1/2010 dated 23.03.2010, Lr.Nos.230310-4/F.93 Rural Habitations/JDO 1/2010 dated 23.03.2010, Lr.Nos.230310-1/F.201 Rural Habitations/JDO 1/2010 dated 23.03.2010, Lr.Nos.230310-3/F.101 Rural Habitations/JDO 1/2010 dated 23.03.2010 and Lr.Nos.230310-2/F.235 Rural Habitations/JDO 1/2010 dated 23.03.2010 respectively and quash the same and directing the respondents herein to forthwith release the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents, the contract was terminated as per Clauses 33 and 41 of the agreement and therefore, the orders passed by the first respondent are just and proper. Further according to the respondents, as per Clause 67 of the agreement the appellants, are not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the event of any dispute arising between the parties in furtherance of the agreements, the course open to the appellants/petitioners is to approach the competent civil court having jurisdiction over the place where the contract is awarded and concluded. Therefore, according to the respondents, the writ petitions are not maintainable and the appellants/petitioners can only file a civil suit. In these circumstances, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ appeals.