Punjab-Haryana High Court
Landmark Signboards Pvt Ltd vs State Of Punjab And Others on 13 February, 2026
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
RA-CR-74-2026 in
CWP-701-2026 -1-
112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
RA-CR-74-2026 in
CWP-701-2026
Date of Decision: 13.02.2026
****
Landmark Signboards Private Limited ..... Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Non-applicants/Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate,
for the applicant/petitioner.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present application has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court on 15.01.2026 in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Earlier a writ petition was filed before this Court praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking direction to respondent No.2 to conduct the pending joint inspection of goods manufactured by the petitioner under rate contract and to issue inspection note as per the terms of the rate contract and various other prayers were also made in this regard.
3. This Court has dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that in the facts and circumstances, the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked and it was also so observed that the petitioner may resort to any other remedy available to him in accordance with law. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 00:54:18 ::: RA-CR-74-2026 in CWP-701-2026 -2-
4. A perusal of the aforesaid prayers made by the petitioner and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner makes it clear that there is a contractual dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3, regarding which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce the manner of performance of the contract. The dispute is purely contractual in nature and the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the allegations of default of respondents No.2 and 3 pertaining to the manner in which the contract was to be performed. This Court is of the considered view that for the aforesaid relief, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked.
5. In view of the above, the present Civil Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioner may resort to any other remedy available to him in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even if it is a contractual dispute and if the State is acting in an arbitrary manner, then this Court can always entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, he referred to the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn." (2004) 3 SCC 553 and in "Unitech limited and others Vs. Telangana State Industrial Infastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and others" (2021) 16 SCC 35. Second argument which was raised by learned counsel for the applicant was that after the judgment was passed by this Court on 15.01.2026, a subsequent event has occurred where fresh tenders have been invited by the respondent for the same product and therefore, it 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 00:54:19 ::: RA-CR-74-2026 in CWP-701-2026 -3- becomes a ground for review of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court and in this regard, he has referred to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Board of Control for Cricket in India and another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others", (2005) 4 SCC 741.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the review applicant.
6. A perusal of the review application would show that it is so averred by the review applicant that it has been constrained to approach this Court seeking review of the impugned judgment on account of error apparent on the face of the record, subsequent to the developments having direct bearing on the controversy and the non-consideration of settled legal principles governing arbitrariness in State action in contractual matters.
7. Through the present review application, the applicant/petitioner in fact has made a prayer which appears to be a disguised appeal by referring the judgment passed by this Court. A ground for re-appreciation of evidence or facts cannot constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.
8. Rather on the other hand, the law with regard to interference by the High Court invoking extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments. It is a settled law that even if one of the contracting party is a State or an instrumentality of the State, if the contract is in the realm of a private law and there is no public law or public duty enjoined in the same, then the High Court will refrain itself from interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India and others", 2015(7) SCC 728 in Para No.69 laid down the legal position while referring to the various earlier 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 00:54:19 ::: RA-CR-74-2026 in CWP-701-2026 -4- judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with different situations/aspects relating to the contracts entered into by the State/Public Authority with private parties. In Para No.70.8, it was so settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the contract between private party and the State/instrumentality and/or agency of State is under the realm of a private law and there is no element of public law, the normal course for the aggrieved party, is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction.
9. In the present case, the contract between the petitioner, who is a private party and the respondents was for the purchase of some furniture etc. which clearly falls within the realm of private law. Reference made by learned counsel for the review applicant with regard to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd.'s case (Supra) and the proposition of law laid down therein is not in dispute. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vested in the High Court is a plenary power and also a Constitutional power for which there can be no bar but at the same time, the question with regard to the entertainability of the petition has to be considered by the High Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, regarding which, this Court is guided by the aforesaid authoritative judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies International Inc.'s case (Supra).
10. Another judgment cited by learned counsel for the review applicant, to the effect that even subsequent event may constitute a ground for interference, is not sustainable because the present application seeks only 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 00:54:19 ::: RA-CR-74-2026 in CWP-701-2026 -5- a review of the judgment passed by this Court, in which no apparent error is evident on the face of the record.
11. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present review application, the same is hereby dismissed.
13.02.2026 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 00:54:19 :::