Gujarat High Court
Pcbl Ltd. Formerly Phillips Carbon ... vs Gujarat Water Infrastructure Ltd on 4 September, 2023
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/511/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 511 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1424 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 511 of 2023
================================================================
PCBL LTD. FORMERLY PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LIMITED & 1 other(s)
Versus
GUJARAT WATER INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
==============================================================================
Appearance:
MS PANCHAMBA H JHALA(13320) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR ADV with MR NANDISH CHUDGAR, ADV with MS MANISHA
NARSINGHANI, ADV for the appellants
GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DEVAN PARIKH, SR ADV with MR DEVARSH TRIVEDI, ADV for GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES for
the Respondent(s) No.1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 04/09/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior advocate assisted by Mr. Nandish Chudgar, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Devan Parikh, learned Senior advocate for the respondent.
2. This intra Court appeal is directed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ-petition, wherein, relief was sought by the petitioners herein to mandate the respondent- Board to recollect the bulk water supply of the unit of the petitioner No.1 based at Mundra, Kutch as also to quash the communication dated 24.01.2023 issued by the Board namely Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 15:52:57 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/511/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2023 undefined GWIL to disconnect the bulk water supply of the unit, which was commenced in the year 2008-09.
3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Senior advocate appearing for the appellants that GWIL cannot refuse water supply to the petitioner unit, inasmuch as, under the Gujarat Domestic Water Supply (Protection Act 2009), it is mandatory for GWIL to ensure supply of water even amongst commercial units. The submission is that as per the Section 4(1) of the said Act, no authority other than a local authority, the Board of GWIL can lay or own a Public Water Distribution System in the State of Gujarat. The submission is that the petitioner has no option but to apply to GWIL for supply of water in view of section 7 of the Act, 2019. It is submitted that at the inception of water connection in the year 2008-09, an agreement dated 24.01.2008 was executed between the parties. Clauses 3.2 and 13.4 of the said agreement has been placed before us to submit that the said clauses provided for minimum monthly supply of water and consequence thereto. Clause 13.4, which was their in the original agreement has now been deleted in the draft agreement, which was prepared by the GWIL. The submission is that the benefits which were available to the appellant as per clause 13.4 of the master agreement have been illegally deleted from the draft agreement. The contention is that the appellant has been Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 15:52:57 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/511/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2023 undefined deprived of receiving credit from the bulk supply, in case it is unable to supply the minimum quantity of water as set out in clause 3.2. The contention is that this deletion of clause 13.4 in the draft agreement entails serious civil consequences to the appellant and since there is no arbitration clause in the agreement, the appellant will not have any forum, to raise its grievances.
4. Considering the submission of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants, we may note that the learned Single Judge has rightly reached at the conclusion that, in case, the parties do not agree to the terms and conditions of the draft agreement, the writ-Court will not have jurisdiction to impress upon the other party to the agreement to add any clause or condition in the agreement.
5. The writ-petition has rightly been dismissed on the ground of maintainability, in light of the controversy raised before the learned Single Judge as also before us. We do not find any infirmity in the findings in the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that this Court has limited jurisdiction in contractual matters and the extraordinary remedy of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to re-write a contract, which is otherwise only a draft agreement.
Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 15:52:57 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/511/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2023 undefined
6. Before parting with this judgment, it would not be out of place to mention here that out of the previous contract which was valid till 23.01.2023, the dispute is pending before the Arbitrator in relation to the claim of the appellant pertaining to certain bills claiming benefit of clause 13.4 noted above, on the premise that for few months even the minimum quantity of water as set out in clause 3.2 of the said agreement, had not been supplied to the appellants. It seems to us that for this reason, the respondent GWIL has deleted the said clause from the draft agreement. It is always open for the parties to set out the terms and conditions of the agreement and, in no case, this Court can invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to mandate a party to incorporate any condition in the agreement.
7. For the above noted reasons, we do not find any merit in the challenge. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
8. In view of the order passed in main appeal, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) Manoj Kumar Rai Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 15:52:57 IST 2023