MARUDHARA CONDUCTORS Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these petitions the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Haryana State Electricity Board, a statutory body to refund the earnest money or security deposit offered by the petitioner in response to the invitation to offer issued by the Haryana State Electricity Board. The petitioner-Company was unable to supply the material on the terms required by the Haryana State Electricity Board and, therefore, no contract of supply materialised. The claim of the petitioner for refund of the earnest money or security deposit not having been acceded to by the Board, the present petitions are filed.

(2.) The former Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. H. Beg observed, while deciding case of Ganpat v. Sashikant, AIR 1978 SC 955, about law of interpretation and precedence. It would be worthwhile to consider in extenso what was observed by his Lordship :-

(3.) Then with regard to the observance of the law of precedent it was observed by the Supreme Court in the same judgment referred to above as under :-