ARTEC ADVERTISING REP BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT MARKETING R SRIDHARAN Vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 27.10.2011, declining the request of petitioner for renewal of the agreement No.09/2010-11 entered into between the parties Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited and the petitioner with regard to issuance of license for display of advertisements on the rear side panel board of 675 buses (Group-II).

(2.) THE petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondent for display of advertisements on the rear side panel board of 675 buses in Chennai. According to the petitioner, the contract was for a period of 33 months, divided into three periods of 11 months each with an escalation in the license fee for each of the 11 months. It was stipulated that the renewal was to be opted at least before the date of expiry of the existing period.

(3.) ON the question with regard to maintainability of the writ petiion for enforcement of contractual obligation, by invoking the writ jurisdiction, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AluminiumIndustries Ltd, Madras vs. Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd and two others, 1997 (II) CTC 636, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleaded to lay down that the writ petition for enforcement of contractual obligation where on party to such contract is State or other authority satisfying definition of State, is ordinarility not maintainable to enforce the terms of the contract or claim damages arising out of concluded contact for breach, but the writ petition can be invoked and power of judicial review can be exercised in extraordinary cases to decide validity of actions of State in contractual matters.