IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.359 of 2009 1. Shri Ashok Kr. Bhatacharya, Food Corporation of India, through its General Manager, Regional Office, Patna. 2. Deputy General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Patna. 3. Md. Sharfaraz Khan son of Late Abdul Hamid, Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Darbhanga. Versus Surya Nath Mishra son of Late Gauri Shankar Mishra resident of village & P.O. Mohammadpur, P.S. Sekra, District Muzaffarpur. ----------- For the Appellants :- M/S. P. K. Verma & S.R. Sharan For the Respondent :- M/S. Devi Das Srivastava & Gopi Krishna ----- 9 26/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under appeal dated 24.6.2008 whereby the writ petition was partly allowed in favour of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) by holding that the appellant Corporation will be entitled to forfeit the security money only to the extent of the damages, losses, charges, expenses or costs that have been suffered or incurred due to the petitioner’s negligence or unwork-man like performance of any of the services under the contract. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the aforesaid relief was granted to the respondent-writ petitioner by interpreting clause X of the agreement which - 2 - has been extracted in the order itself. He advanced two submissions, firstly that after reading Clause X & XI together the inference arrived at by the writ Court must be held to be erroneous and secondly he relied upon several judgments of the Supreme Court to submit that the contract in question was a non statutory contract not falling in the realm of public law and, hence, no writ petition should have been entertained even for the purpose of interpreting any of the clauses of the agreement. It would not be proper for us to express our views on the first submission unless we have answered objection to the writ petition raised by way of second submission. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to catena of judgments of the Supreme Court starting from (i) State of U.P. Vs. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Limited, reported in (1996) 6 SCC, 22, (ii) Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Vs. Gayatri Construction Company reported in (2008) 8 SCC,172 and several other judgments which are discussed and mentioned in paragraphs 12,13, 14,15 & 16 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Pimpri - 3 - Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (Supra), including the judgment in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil reported in (2000) 6 SCC, 293. Those judgments of the Supreme Court clearly lay down the law that interpretation and implementation of a Clause in a contract cannot be the subject matter of a writ petition when the contract is non-statutory. Invocation of power under a non statutory contract even by statutory bodies or by the government may not raise any issue of public law. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust reported in (1994) 3 SCC, 552 the Supreme Court held that the termination of a non statutory contract is not a quasi judicial act and it was not necessary to observe the principles of natural justice. In other words, the issue of fairness also could not be invoked for interfering with a non statutory contract in exercise of writ jurisdiction. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that in appropriate cases the High Court can interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction even if the matter involves some disputed questions of fact. In our view that is not the issue arising in this - 4 - case. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India Vs. Seil Limited reported in (2008) 3 SCC 440. That judgment does not help the respondent because interference in writ jurisdiction in that case was upheld because the contract was statutory one. That is not the situation in the present case. On considering the entire facts and circumstances and the submissions of the parties, noticed above, we are of the view that the writ Court could not have entertained writ petition so as to interpret a clause of a non statutory contract and to grant even partial relief to the writ petitioner on that basis. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. Judgment and order under appeal is set aside. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to that extent. AMIN (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)