Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The attempt on the part of the railways to submit before this Court that the Court may not exercise its writ jurisdiction in contractual matters, will not deter us from examining the issue. Though the learned senior counsel had vehemently raised a preliminary objection about entertaining such a petition, in light of the alternate remedy being Tilak 39 WP-1996-17(J) available, by this time, it is settled position of law that though a writ petition for enforcement of contractual obligations where one of a party to such contract is State, or falls within the definition of "State" is not ordinarily maintainable to enforce the terms of contract or claim of damages arising out of the concluded contract alleging its breach, writ jurisdiction of the Court can always be invoked and the power of judicial review can be exercised in extra-ordinary cases to decide the validity of actions of state in contractual matters. 19 A statute may confer a power on the statutory functionary to enter into contracts in exercise of its duties and functions. The dispute may arise out of the terms of such contracts or its alleged breaches, and in all such cases, they will have to be settled by applying the ordinary principles of law of contract. Merely because one of the parties to the agreement is a statutory functionary, will not restrict invocation of a remedy of this Court, since every dispute involving a statutory body or its functionary may not be in exercise of its statutory power. In ABL International Ltd Vs. Tilak 40 WP-1996-17(J) Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has extensively dealt with the issue as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to enforce a contractual obligation of the State or its instrumentality. The following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court would be apt to be referred to :