PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful petitioner is in appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12.03.2012 whereby WP. No. 27133 of 2009, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed primarily on the ground that several disputed questions of facts arising in the matter cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned single Judge left the parties to resolve the disputes by approaching appropriate forum other than by way of a writ petition. It would be appropriate to notice the relief sought for in the writ petition:

(2.) The order of the learned single Judge is assailed, inter alia, on the ground that remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available even in respect of contractual matters by placing reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., 2004 3 SCC 553; Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India v. Devi Ispat Ltd., 2010 11 SCC 186 Reliance Energy Limited v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd., 2007 8 SCC 1; M.D., H.S.I.D.C. v. Hari Om Enterprises, 2009 16 SCC 208. It is also assailed on the ground that correspondence between the parties commencing with invitation of bid issued by the respondent corporation clearly spells out the terms of the contract/bargain and appropriate appreciation thereof would entitle the petitioner to the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as no other disputed questions arise.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Kapur, learned senior counsel appearing the appellant, therefore, contended that only if oral evidence is required to prove a fact, the petitioner may be relegated to a remedy of suit but the present case does not require any evidence to be led, as the exchange of correspondence between the parties, which is not in dispute, is sufficient to adjudicate on the controversy involved in the writ petition. So far as the merits of the claim are concerned, learned senior counsel for the appellant, contended that essential terms of the contract having not been settled, merely on the basis of vague and ambiguous terms, the respondent corporation cannot contend that a concluded contract exists between the parties. He, therefore, justified the relief sought for refund of sale consideration as the negotiations between the parties continued and never did finally settle all the terms of any agreement between them.