Karnataka High Court
M/S.Sew Infrastructure Ltd., vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply And on 21 October, 2020
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.146560 OF 2020 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
M/S. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,
6-3-871, SNEHALATA 1ST FLOOR
GREEN LANDS ROAD, BEGUMPET
HYDERABAD - 500 016
STATE OF ANDRA PRADESH
REPRESENTED BY
PADAVALA B.K. PRASAD
SENIOR MANAGAER, PROJECTS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.S. PONNANNA, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI.M.S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
AND DRAINGE BOARD
NO.5 & 6, " JAL BHAVAN", 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE
BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU - 580 029.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NORTH)
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD
JALAMANDALI COMPOUND
DHARWAD - 580 001.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD
KALABURAGI ZONE, OPPOSITE MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
AIWAN E SHAHI ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
-2-
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BALLARI DIVISION
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD
BALLARI - 581 314.
5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB-DIVISION
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD
SHIVASHANTAVEER NAGAR, BEHIND KISHORI PETROL BUNK
HOSPET ROAD, KOPPAL - 581 171.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.N. SHASHIDHAR.S AND
SRI.DAYANAND.M.BANDI, ADVOCATES)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER, OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY
QUASHING THE SHORT TERM TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED:
06.05.2020 NO. KWB/CE (K)/ TEC/AE-2/ ZONE6-
GVT/WSS/142/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.
THIS W.P. IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 25.08.2020, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned letter at Annexure-G dated 18.02.2020 issued by respondent No.3 to the petitioner and for consequential quashing of the impugned short term tender notification at Annexure-J dated 06.05.2020 issued by respondent No.3 and for other reliefs.
-3-
2. I have heard Sri.A.S.Ponnanna, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.H.N.Shashidhara, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:-
Respondents awarded a contract in favour of the petitioner for construction work of improvement of water supply scheme to Gangavathi city, Koppal district vide Agreement dated 02.07.2002 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner in a value of Rs.42,63,04,901/- with the initial completion period being 24 months. The contract work comprised of construction works, distribution works, pipeline works etc., for the purpose of providing drinking water to residents of Gangavathi city. According to the petitioner, the distribution work was divided into 10 zones, out of which, petitioner has completed more than 90% work in the distribution network. Similarly, out of the total pipeline work of 180 K.M., petitioner has laid 165 K.M. Accordingly, the work completed by the petitioner has -4- resulted in providing drinking water to several residents of Gangavathi city.
Initially, the project was supposed to be completed by 29.07.2014. After correspondence between the parties, the time for completion was extended up to 31.07.2016. Subsequently, the work having not been completed even by that date, the time for completion was extended up to 31.12.2018.
According to the petitioner, the delay was not attributable to the petitioner and there was no breach of contract or non-performance of the promises/obligations under the Contract by the petitioner and the delay was solely attributable to the respondents. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the petitioner was not diligent in performing his part of the contract and the petitioner was guilty of delay, non-performance and breach of the contract. On 31.08.2017, respondents issued a final notice to the petitioner informing them that since there was no improvement in the progress of the work by the petitioner, respondents would have no option but to rescind the -5- contract and take up the balance works at the risk and cost of the petitioner.
The aforesaid notice was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.45212/2017 before this Court which was contested by the respondents. During the pendency of the said petition, respondents extended the period of completion up to 31.12.2018 and the same was brought to the notice of this Court. Taking note of the same and considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure-R18).
The material on record also indicates that subsequent to 31.12.2018, there has been continuous correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents, whereby both sides have attributed delay and non-completion of the work to each other till the same ultimately culminated in the impugned Letter at Annexure-G dated 18.02.2020 issued by the respondents to the petitioner.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner put forth the following contentions:-
-6-
(i) The contract between the petitioner and the respondents is a statutory contract involving an element of public interest and the respondents having acted arbitrarily, it is open for this Court to interfere in its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India;
(ii) The respondents have invoked Clause No.39.2 of the General Conditions of Contract (for short 'GCC') for the purpose of issuing the impugned Letter at Annexure-G; A perusal of the said clause will indicate that the same is not applicable to the facts of the case and as such, the impugned letter is vitiated;
(iii) The impugned Letter is violative of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.
(iv) While the original budget allocated in respect of Zone-6 in favour of the petitioner was in a value of Rs.1.41 crores, the impugned Tender Notification at Annexure-J dated 06.05.2020 in favour of third party, who was already identified fixes the value at Rs.2.35 crores which clearly indicate arbitrariness and malafides on the part of the respondents.-7-
(v) Even according to clauses - 39.1 and 39.2, there should be a consultative process prior to invoking clause-
39.2 and in view of the undisputed fact that no such consultative process had been undertaken, invocation of clause-39.2 in the impugned Letter at Annexure-G is impermissible and vitiated.
(vi) The alternative remedy of appeal under Section 16 of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (for short 'the KTPP Act') is available only against an order passed by the Tender Accepting Authority; In the instant case, what is assailed is the impugned letter at Annexure-G dated 18.02.2020 and the consequential Tender Notification at Annexure-J dated 06.05.2020;
(vii) Since the petitioner has assailed the impugned Letter and Notification at Annexures - G and J on the grounds of arbitrariness, unreasonableness, impropriety, irrationality, malafides, malice etc., mere existence of a Dispute Resolution Mechanism at clause No.67 of the Agreement will not take away the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; -8-
(viii) The correspondence between the parties as can be seen from the documents produced along with the rejoinder clearly indicates that there was no breach / default on the part of the petitioner who was prevented from completing the work on account of the delay by the respondents in performing its part of the contract as well as directing the petitioner not to go ahead with the completion of the work; The material on record indicates that no disputed questions of fact arise for consideration which have the effect of preventing this Court from considering the claim of the petitioner;
(ix) The alleged termination of the contract by the respondents by invoking clause - 39.2 is not permissible as can be seen from the Contract; Assuming that the termination is to be construed as having been done under clause - 63, the procedure prescribed and the mandatory requirements contained therein have not been complied with prior to issuance of the impugned letter at Annexure-G and consequently, there is no bar for this Court to adjudicate upon the legality and validity of the said Notice; -9-
(x) Merely because the subject matter of this petition relates to a contract / contractual matters, the power and jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate upon the petition is not taken away.
(xi) Clause-39.2 itself provides for a consultative process between the petitioner and the respondents prior to invocation of clause-39.2; No plea or material is produced by the respondents in this regard and consequently, respondents were not entitled to invoke clause - 39.2 and issue the impugned letter at Annexure-G which is vitiated on this ground also;
(xii) Annexure-G is not a termination of the Contract by the respondents; Even according to the respondents, subsequent to Annexure-G, they purport to terminate the contract vide Resolution at Annexure-R26 dated 29.04.2020; In this context, it is submitted that prior to the said Resolution, petitioner was neither heard nor given any opportunity and consequently, the said Resolution is violative of principle of natural justice since there is no termination at all which was also not communicated to the petitioners; Consequently, the impugned fresh Tender
- 10 -
Notification at Annexure-J dated 06.05.2020 purporting to allot the work to someone else is illegal;
(xiii) It is not in dispute that the value of Contract awarded in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject work was around Rs.1.41 Crores while the value of the Contract for the remaining works proposed to be awarded in favour of someone else as per the impugned Tender Notification at Annexure-J was Rs.2.35 Crores; It is therefore contended that there is an increase of about Rs.94 lakhs which is without any basis and smacks of malafides, malice and bias warranting interference by this Court;
(xiv) It is also not in dispute that the impugned Tender Notification dated 06.05.2020 was issued during the Covid-19 lockdown period by enhancing the value by Rs.94 lakhs at a point in time when there was huge scarcity of money for the State Government on account of the pandemic; The very fact that the respondents decided to incur an additional expenditure of Rs.94 lakhs during this period despite the petitioner having completed 90% of the work in the Zone-6 as well as the other zones which
- 11 -
continue to remain with the petitioner is sufficient to indicate malafides and colourable exercise of power by the respondents;
(xv) In the earlier petition in W.P.No.45212/2017 filed by the petitioner against the respondents, petitioner had challenged the Notice dated 31.08.2017 calling upon the petitioner to be present on 11.09.2019 at the site for taking final measurements. While considering the said petition, this Court took into account that subsequent to filing of the petition, time for the petitioner to complete the work was extended up to December, 2018. It was under those circumstances that by order dated 23.07.2018, this Court in W.P.No.45212/2017 declined to interfere in the matter; The subject matter of the present petition is a subsequent Notice at Annexure-G dated 18.02.2020 and as such, the earlier petition in W.P.No.45212/2017 as well as the order passed by this Court therein are neither relevant nor germane for adjudication of the present petition; It is therefore contended that mere non-mentioning of W.P.No.45212/2017 or the order passed therein cannot be construed or treated as suppression of fact, much less
- 12 -
material fact so as to prevent this Court from examining the claim of the petitioner on merits.
(xvi) It is therefore submitted that the impugned Letter at Annexure-G and impugned Tender Notification at Annexure-J deserve to be quashed by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents put forth the following contentions:-
(i) Since disputed question of fact are involved in the present petition in relation to contract/contractual matter, the same cannot be adjudicated in the present petition, which is not maintainable;
(ii) The petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 16 of the KTPP Act and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground;
(iii) Since the Agreement at Annexure-A dated 02.07.2012 contains a Dispute Resolution Mechanism at clause-67, the present petition is not maintainable;
(iv) The petitioner was guilty of committing default in completion of work under the Agreement within the stipulated period which ended in 2014 and even after sufficient extension of time was given to him by the
- 13 -
respondents; Accordingly, having committed breach/default of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the present petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at the hands of this Court;
(v) The petitioner is guilty of suppression of material fact that he has intentionally and deliberately suppressed that he had filed W.P.No.45212/2017 in respect of the very same Agreement and the said petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.1 lakh by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2018; It is therefore contended that the conduct of petitioner disentitles him from any relief in the present petition;
(vi) The undisputed correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents clearly indicate that sufficient opportunity had been granted to the petitioner to complete the work keeping in mind the larger public interest involved in supplying drinking water to the residents of Koppal city and the petitioner having failed to complete the work, despite the same, the respondents were fully justified in terminating the contract and consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court; In this
- 14 -
context, it is submitted that since the petitioner disputes the said contentions of the respondents with regard to breach of contract and valid termination of the same by the respondents, the said issues give rise to disputed questions of fact in relation to contractual matters which does not permit or warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
In support of his contentions, reliance is placed on the following decisions:-
(a) Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd., vs. State of Karnataka & Others - (2012) 8 SCC 216;
(b) Montecarlo Ltd., vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., - (2016) 15 SCC 272;
(c) Municipal Corporation, Ujjain & Anr. vs. BVG India Ltd., & Others - (2018) 5 SCC 462;
(d) Tata Cellular vs. Union of India - (1994) 6 SCC 651;
(e) K.D.Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., & Others - (2008) 12 SCC 481;
(f) M/s.OJSC Corporation vs. Government of Karnataka & Others - AIR 2005 KAR 351.
- 15 -
6. I have given my anxious considerations to the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel.
7. It is not in dispute that aggrieved by the final notice dated 31.08.2017 issued by the respondents, petitioner preferred W.P.No.45212/2017 before this Court. By order dated 23.07.2018, this Court dismissed the said writ petition. While doing so, this Court has held as under:-
"7. As could be seen from the above prayers, the 1st prayer relates to the communication dated 31.08.2017 issued by 2nd respondent to the petitioner stating thereunder that the progress of the work by the petitioner is slow and Board is compelled to rescind the contract and take up the balance work at the cost of the petitioner. Petitioner is also called upon to be present on 11.09.2017 at the site for taking final measurements and it is also indicated in the said impugned notice that contract would be rescinded as per the terms and conditions stipulated under the contract. Subsequent to this communication, there has been several rounds of discussion and talks held between the petitioners and the respondents and in one such meetings held on 04.07.2018 (Annexure-AA produced along with the rejoinder dated 21.07.2018 filed by the petitioner), it has been resolved by the respondents
- 16 -
to grant time to the petitioner to complete all the remaining works by end of December 2018. Undisputedly, in the said meeting, the Vice President of the petitioner who is deponent to the verifying affidavit of the writ petition was also present and the resolution in the said meeting was resolved to extend the time for completing the project. It was resolved as under:
"All the works shall be completed within one month and keep on completing all remaining works and complete by December 2018. It was also brought to the notice of the agency that, if any failure in completing the above works within a month, the contract will be rescinded as per terms and conditions of contract agreement."
8. In the light of the subsequent developments having arisen in the facts of the present case and there being no dispute to the fact that respondent having stated categorically in the event of non-compliance of work that has been entrusted to the petitioner within the time, as resolved in the said meeting that respondent- Board would take further steps to rescind the contract issued in favour of the petitioner. Hence, first prayer sought for in this writ petition does not required to be considered by this Court.
- 17 -
9. Sri.K.J.Kamath has also contended in support of second prayer sought for in the writ petition that a statutory duty is cast on the respondents and its officials and there being a failure on the part of performance of a public duty by the officials of the 2nd respondent, this Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 as also under the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can issue a writ as sought for and as such he has prayed for such a direction being issued to the respondents to address the concerns raised by the petitioner by their communications dated 26.12.2016 (Annexure-L12), 8.3.2017 (Annexure-P), 17.5.2017 (Annexure-R), 6.7.2017 (Annexure-S), 5.9.2017 bearing (Annexure-W), 11.9.2017 (Annexure-W1) and 21.9.2017 (Annexure-W2) and also to grant sufficient time to the petitioner to complete the project by issuing a writ of mandamus.
10. Insofar as issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondent to permit the petitioner to complete the work entrusted to it, as already noticed hereinabove has been addressed to by the respondent itself in a meeting held on 04.07.2018 in which petitioner itself has participated and as such it would not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to seek for such a prayer and in all fairness petitioner ought to have stated before this Court that in the light of said development having taken place, issuing a direction to grant time to the
- 18 -
petitioner would not arise. However, this fairness is not forthcoming from the petitioner.
11. Be that as it may. Insofar as direction which has been sought for by the petitioner to the respondent to address the concerns raised by the petitioner in their representations / communications referred to herein relates to a dispute which has arisen between the parties arising out of a contract. A contractual obligation which requires reciprocal performances would not be a subject matter of scrutiny by a writ Court. It is no doubt true that judicial review of an administrative action is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, if such administrative action would necessarily involve reciprocal performance of contractual obligations or involve disputed question of facts, it is trite law that scrutiny of same is impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'M/s. RADHAKRISHNA AGARWAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS' reported in AIR 1977 SC 1496 has held after noticing plethora of judgments to the effect that where the contracts do not contain any statutory terms or obligations and no statutory power or obligation which could attract the application of Article 14 is involved, question of issuing a writ in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not arise. It has been further held where the State or its agents including a Board like the respondents who were
- 19 -
just an instrumentality of State, enters into a field of ordinary contracts, the relations would be no longer governed by constitutional provisions but by a legally valid contract which determines the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. Hence, no question would arise for violation of Article 14 or any other constitutional provision which the State or its agents purporting to act within the contractual field perform any act. It has been further held that in this sphere, they can only claim rights conferred upon them by contract and are bound by the terms of the contract only unless some statute steps in and confers same special statutory power or obligation on the State in the contractual field, which would be apart from the contract.
12. Keeping the above principles in mind when the facts on hand are examined record would disclose that the petitioner has unequivocally admitted in the petition itself that it is governed by the contract and in the words of the petitioner itself, it reads as under:
"It is submitted that the general conditions of the agreement contains a dispute resolution mechanism by first referring all the disputes to the 'Engineer' (2nd/3rd respondent).
If the decision of the Engineer is not acceptable and any amicable settlement fails, legal action can be initiated by approaching the Courts of local jurisdiction under the Law of
- 20 -
Karnataka State where the contract was executed. It is submitted that such a remedy is not an efficacious alternative remedy because firstly, there is no dispute in respect of the agreement, as none of the respondents have not rejected any of the concerns raised by the petitioner but only not responded to the said issues and concerns, despite several reminders, secondly, assuming there is a dispute, the petitioner has not obtained any cooperation from any of the respondents when it approached them for amicably resolving the petitioner's concerns thirdly, the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble High Court can be invoked as the act of the respondents is manifestly arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and violates principles of natural justice."
13. Thus, above terms of contract would disclose that parties have agreed for resolution of dispute arising out of the subject contract by a particular mechanism. However, it is contended by the petitioner that remedy provided under the contract to an aggrieved person is not efficacious or alternate remedy. The petitioner has tried to knock at the doors of this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As noticed hereinabove, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the field of contractual obligations which mandate that reciprocal promises are required to be performed and violation thereof is complained by either of the
- 21 -
parties, in such circumstances, writ Court would not enter into the arena of ascertaining, examining or scrutinizing as to whether such dispute is genuine or otherwise for the simple reason that such an exercise would require the evidence and in writ jurisdiction such exercise cannot be undertaken. In that view of the matter, 2nd prayer sought for by the petitioner to direct the respondents to consider the representations, would not arise.
14. This order could have ended at this stage itself. However, this Court is perforced to observe that in the projects like in question which involve providing basic needs to the public at large namely in the instant case, it relates to providing drinking water to the people of Gangavathi, it emerges from the record that though contract was entrusted to the petitioner in the year 2012 and 6 years have lapsed, still said contract is proceeding at a snail's pace. By virtue of repeated extension of time granted by the respondent and its officials and the reasons which have been assigned for such extensions, the correctness of which is not gone into by this Court, the fact remains that project has got delayed inordinately. It is not in dispute that appropriate Government being vested with power under Section 53 of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1973, to issue orders or directions to the Board or the local authority concerned, as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the Act
- 22 -
and the Board is mandatorily required to comply with such directions or orders issued by the appropriate Government. In that view of the matter appropriate Government shall look into the aspects relating to delay in implementation of the project by the first respondent since ultimate loser being the general public for whose benefit projects are being implemented. In the instant case project in question relates to providing drinking water to the public of Gangavathi Town and it has remained a mirage and necessarily residents of Gangavathi have been at the receiving end viz., are unable to have portable drinking water, which is a basic requirement of human beings. Project on hand has got delayed on account of blame-game and as such it would be open for the appropriate government to examine as to whether delay was on account of lapse on the part of the officials of first respondent-Board and if so, issue directions or orders as may be necessary to avoid repetition of such incidents in future.
15. With these observations, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is hereby dismissed with costs.
(ii) Petitioner is hereby directed to pay respondent -
Board the costs quantified at `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the event of same cost not being deposited or paid by the petitioner to the first respondent - Board, first
- 23 -
respondent shall file an affidavit in the Registry to said effect and on such affidavit being filed, the Registrar General shall issue a certificate in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal Division to enable first respondent to recover said amount from petitioner as arrears of land revenue.
Ordered accordingly".
8. A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, inter-parties will indicate that one of the grounds on which the petition was dismissed was that the dispute between the parties related to contractual rights and obligations including breach and reciprocal promises which could not be adjudicated upon by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It was also held that without exhausting the pre-litigation process/mechanism contained in clause-67 of the GCC, interference by this Court is not warranted. It is not in dispute that by the second extension, the date for completion was extended up to 31.12.2018 i.e., subsequent to disposal of the aforesaid writ petition by this Court on 23.07.2018.
- 24 -
9. The material on record also indicates that even after 31.12.2018, there has been correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents, both making allegations and counter allegations of delay, breach of contract, non- performance of reciprocal, promises and obligations etc., all in relation to the contract entered into between the parties. The said correspondence ultimately culminated in the impugned Letter at Annexure-G issued by the respondents. It is relevant to state that though Annexure-G is said to have been issued by invoking clause-39.2 of the GCC, it is the contention of the petitioner that the said clause does not apply to the facts of the instant case. In addition to factual disputes between the parties with regard to enforcement, breach and non-performance of contractual obligations by both sides, interpretation of the terms and conditions of the contract is yet another area of dispute between the parties in relation to the contract.
10. Further, subsequent to disposal of W.P.No.45212/2017 and 31.12.2018 up to which date, the time for completion was extended and till issuance of the impugned letter at Annexure-G and filing of the present
- 25 -
petition, there are no changed circumstances which have resulted in giving rise to a situation where no disputes between the parties with regard to contractual rights and obligations or interpretation of the contract is in existence. In other words, even the rival contentions urged between the parties in the present petition and the material on record give rise to various and several contentious issues of fact, law etc., in relation to a contract which is not capable of being adjudicated in the present petition.
11. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that without going into the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it fit and proper to dispose of the petition directing the petitioner to avail such remedies as available in law, since the present case does not warrant interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby disposed of holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for by
- 26 -
them in the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail such remedies as available in law in respect of any/all of the grievances and contentions put forth by them in the present petition or otherwise;
(iii) All rival contentions between the petitioner and respondents on merits are kept / left open.
No costs.
SD JUDGE Srl.