TIRATH SINGH Vs. RAJESH MOTORS & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that a Hydraulic Crane was purchased by one Ikbal Singh from respondent no.1 Rajesh Motors. Albeit, the petitioner Teerath Singh is said to be the Power of Attorney Holder of Ikbal Singh, but no such document was found to have been placed on record, which could evince that the petitioner was the power of Attorney Holder of Ikbal singh. On this very sole ground, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed outrightly.

(3.) However, without prejudice to the above even if it is presumed that a contract was entered into between the parties, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In the realm of contract, interference through writ jurisdiction is not proper, particularly when no unfairness is alleged. Even in the case of a contract by the Government as a public utility undertaking, the Court cannot interfere with the terms of the contract, unless they are discriminatory unreasonable or capricious. In the instant case, Ikbal Singh purchased the Hydraulic Crane on loan. He used the said crane for about 531 hours. He did not raise any objection during the said period. The writ petition is found to have been filed malafidely with a view to defraud the respondents.