R K KOTEESWARAN PROPRIETOR M/S PADMAVATHY CONSTRUCTIONS TIRUVELLORE Vs. GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY CHENNAI 3

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 20th November, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 16980 of 1996 in which the petitioner sought for quashing the communication dated 12.7.1996, bearing No.J/W - 148/2382/1 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager (Works) Palakkad. The said communication reads thus: -

(2.) THE learned single Judge has taken the view that as the matter relates to a contract, it is open to the petitioner/appellant to invoke the jurisdiction of a Civil Court, and Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not exercisable. However, learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of one of us siting singly, interpreting the very same clause 61(b) of the general conditions of the contract. The learned single Judge has taken the view that the very relief sought for itself cannot be entertained in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as such the decision in C. Arumugam v. Union of India and another, W.P. No. 7284 of 1988 dated 5.7.1991 will not, apply to the case on hand.

(3.) NO doubt, the learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. AIR 1991 SC 537 in which in paragraph Nos.28 and 48, it has been observed thus: -