IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5180 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.03.2010 Vijender Kumar ….Petitioner versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for intervention through a writ remedy for an alleged violation of contract by the 3rd respondent which is a private Company. The petitioner claims to be a sub-contractor under the 3rd respondent, who had undertaking some contract for respondents 1 and 3. The complaint of the petitioner is that the building contract is being terminated without giving to him an opportunity to show cause against such termination, as provided by clause 10(1) of the Contract between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. A termination of a Contract by private individual without following the terms will raise for an action for damage, it is so established and he cannot seek for a direction here. Even otherwise, the terms of the contract restrict the jurisdiction to Delhi Civil Writ Petition No.5180 of 2010 - 2 - and the petitioner cannot have a remedy before this Court. Still further, if ever the contract is capable of specific enforcement, the remedy by means of a civil suit is alone the appropriate remedy. 2. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22 .03.2010 sanjeev