A.J.Baskaran vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation on 27 March, 2007
In AIR 1993 AP 1 (Krishna & Company v. Government of A.P.) a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Curt considered similar issue and in paragraph 12 held as follows,
"12. Then the question arises as to the forum, before which it can be agitated. The respondent-Government argues that the question of frustration of contract cannot be gone into in this Writ Petition and that the amount claimed cannot be refunded and that if at all there is any right for the petitioner, the same has to be ventilated through the process of institution of a suit in a civil Court under the common law and this Court cannot entertain such a plea in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are afraid, that we cannot accede to this contention, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is true, as contended by the learned Government Pleader, that ordinarily when a plea of frustration of contract is raised and consequent refund of amounts is sought for, it is the civil Court which has to entertain the lis having regard to the nature of dispute where the fact finding enquiry is necessary. But, in the instant case, no such fact finding is necessary. The petitioenr is also not claiming any relief for breach of contract so as to say the relief with regard to the breach of contract is purely contractual and that the remedy lies in a civil Court. Here is a case where the auction is held under the statutory rules, a statutory contract has been entered into and the facts leading to the stoppage of work relating to quarrying of sand by the petitioner at the instance of the persons and authority claiming through and on behalf of the Government are admitted and the petitioner is not claiming any damages so as to drive him to Civil Court for determination of the quantum after fulfledged trial. The petitioner is just seeking for refund of the amounts deposited by him after his bid was accepted and having regard to the fact that he was prevented from exercising his rights under the leases and the inaction of the respondents in setting right the matters has frustrated the contract and the respondents had absolutely no right or authority to hold up the said lease amounts aggregating to Rs.39,600/-. The petitioner is also not claiming any interest. As the contract is a statutory one, as the legal right of the petitioner to quarry was invaded by the public and governmental authorities leading to frustration of contract, as the acts leading to frustration of contract are admitted by the respondents, as there is no disputed question arises for determination of the amount claimed inasmuch as the amount claimed is neither by way of damages nor for any breach of contract, we hold that it is not justifiable for this Court to drive the petitioner to seek the common law remedy."