M M LCSAHNI Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition by M. M. L. Sahni made under the provisions 9f Article 226 of the Constitution of India contains the prayer that a writ of certiorari be Issued and the notice dated 3rd October, 1967 issued by the District Controller of Stores, the order of the District Controller of Stores dated 26th October, 1967 and the letter of the As sistant Engineer, Head Quarters, Nor thern Railway, Lucknow dated 9th Nov ember, 1967 (Annexures 9, 10 and 13 respectively) be quashad. There is also a prayer for the issue of a writ, direc tion or order in the nature of prohibi tion prohibiting the respondents, the Union of India, the Controller of Stores, the District Controller of Stores and the Assistant Engineer, Northern Railway from ousting the petitioner from the accommodation belonging to the Rail way, which he is occupying, or from demolishing the same. There is also a prayer to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus com manding the respondents to place orders for stitching of uniforms which he used to do earlier. In addition there is an usual prayer for any other writ, direction or order as this court in the circumstances of the case may deem fit and proper to issue.

(2.) IT is not necessary to mention the various facts averred in the peti tion or what is contained in the coun ter affidavit or the rejoinder affidavit because the petition is clearly miscon ceived and is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable. The petitioner wants to enforce an agreement entered into by the respon dents with him and this cannot be done in the exercise of writ jurisdiction by this court. It may be stated that no breach of law is pleaded nor there is a complaint that any of the fundamental rights have been infringed. It is well settled that no writ lies to enforce a contract. It is true that certain cir cumstances even though the source of a right may be a contract or an agree ment, a writ may lie against the order of an authority having statutory powers. As for example, if an authority modifies an action taken by his subordinate au thority and thus deprives the petitioner of the right that accrued to him by virtue of the order of the subordinate authority, the writ may be maintain able. In the case of The D. F. O. South Kheri v. Ram Sanehi Singh, 1970 UJ (SC) 290, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows:

(3.) THE respondents are not a Judicial body or a quasi' judicial body. When they terminated the agreement, they acted administratively and not judicially or quasi-judically. A writ of prohibition would not go in such cir cumstances.