Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 328 (PAT)

Manoj Kumar v. Bihar Public Service Commission

2002-03-07

S.N.JHA, T.P.SINGH

body2002
ORDER This Letters patent appeal arises from an order by which the Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground that the dispute falls beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution observing that the claim of the appellant was false, vague and manipulated, in collusion with Yugal Kishore Sah, Section Officer (Purchase) in the office of the Bihar Public Service Commission. Learned Single Judge noticed that as a matter of fact the said Yugal Kishore Sah has been placed under suspension and observed that the proceeding against him should be carried to the logical conclusion. 2. After hearing counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of dismissal though for different reason. 3. The claim of the appellant arises from supply of certain goods to the Bihar Public Service Commission. It appears from para-8 of the petition of appeal that the supply of goods was worth Rs.41, 89,033/- against which a sum of Rs.34,99,083/-was paid to the appellant. Thus there is a dispute with respect to the balance amount of Rs.6,89950/-There is another dispute arising out of another transaction in which goods worth Rs.1,60,000/- were allegedly supplied but payment was not made. 4. It will thus clear that the appellant approached this court for enforcement of contractual obligation for which writ petition under Article-226 of the Constitution cannot be said to be appropriate remedy. Counsel for the appellant relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Verigamto Naveen Vs. Govt. of A.P, (2001) 8 S.C.C. 344 , and Roshan Deen Vs. Preetilal, (2002) 1 S.C.C.100. 5. The first case related to illegal termination of a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules and the Mines and Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. The grant of lease apparently was under statutory provisions. In this context, the Supreme Court observed, in para-21 of the judgment, that where the breach of contract involved breach of statutory obligations when the order complained of was made in exercise of statutory power by a statutory authority, though cause of action arises out of or pertains to contract, the matter comes within the sphere of public law amenable to writ jurisdiction because the power exercised is apart from contract. The decision has no application in the present case for the simple reason that the claim herein is for enforcement of contractual obligations pure and simple. The contract not being statutory and there being no statutory obligation on the part of the B.P.S.C. to make such payment) the decision is of no help to the petitioner. 6. The later case Le, the case of Roshan Deen related to claim for compensation under, the Workmen's Compensation Act. The claim of the applicant was earlier disposed of by the Commissioner in term of an agreement which was later challenged. The Commissioner recalled his order which was challenged by the employer in the High Court. The High Court set aside the order and restored the earlier order. The Supreme Court disapproving the High Court's order observer that the legislative mandate of protect the rights of the workman cannot be ignored while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. We fail to understand how this decision can be of any help for the appellant. 7. In the case of Radha Krishna Agrawal Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1977)3 S.C.C. 457 : 1978 PLJR 304, the Supreme Court referred to different categories of cases and while dealing the case arising out of breach of contract simplicitor held that the remedy of the aggrieved person is before the Civil Court. Only in cases relating to breach of statutory contracts recourse may be taken in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The decision still holds the field. 8. We are of the view that remedy of the appellant was/is to file suit in the Civil Court to seek enforcement of his contractual rights if any. The observation of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the claim of the appellant is false, vague and manipulated will not stand in the way of the appellant in the suit which will be decided on the basis of evidence adducea by the parties. 9. Subject to this observation, this appeal stands dismissed.