HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.7790 of 2011 Date : 11-10-2011 Between : V. Seetarami Reddy .. Petitioner And The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation & CAD Department, Kurnool Circle, Kurnool District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri G. Venkata Reddy Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development Department The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, who was entrusted with the work relating to the repairs and improvements to Sagukunta tank under an agreement entered into with the respondents, filed the present Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by termination of the contract and forfeiture of deposits vide letter dated 3-2- 2011 of respondent No.2. Under the above mentioned agreement, the petitioner was entrusted with the work of effecting repairs and improvements to Sagukunta for a contract value of Rs.6,21,708/-. Agreement dated 9-5-2010 was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2 for execution of the said work. As the petitioner did not complete the work within the stipulated period, he sought for extension of contract till 31-7-2011. The petitioner submitted that respondent No.3, who was deputed to make site inspection and submit a report, submitted his report on 9-8- 2010 recommending for extension of time. Respondent No.2, has however, passed the impugned order terminating the contract and forfeiting the petitioner’s deposits. The petitioner questioned the said action mainly on the ground that the termination of the contract is not preceded by any notice or opportunity of being heard and that therefore the same is not only in violation of principles of natural justice but also arbitrary. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit justifying his action of termination of the contract. It is inter alia stated that under the original agreement, the period of contract stipulated is three calendar months; that nine days before the expiry of the original agreement, the petitioner sought for extension of time upto 31-7-2011 and that all the notices issued by respondent No.2 were received by the petitioner and the contract was finally terminated on 3-2-2011; that the petitioner was also blacklisted by the Chief Engineer, NSRS Srisailam Project, Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 31- 12-2008 for furnishing false experience certificate in connection with another work and that had the said order been received by the Department in time, the petitioner would have been prevented from tendering for the work. It is further stated that final notice vide letter No.1443, dated 30-10-2010 was dispatched to the petitioner. A copy of the acknowledgement is filed to show that the petitioner has received the said notice. As no response was received from the petitioner, the agreement was terminated on 3-2-2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 has acted with arbitrariness in terminating the contract while the representation of the petitioner for extension of the contract was pending. He further submitted that the petitioner has not received any of the notices, including the final notice. Respondent No.2 has filed copies of acknowledgements in support of his plea that the petitioner has received the notices. In my opinion, the dispute raised by the petitioner is not amenable for adjudication in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, disputes arose under a non-statutory commercial contract. Ordinarily, the aggrieved party has to avail common law remedies such as filing a civil suit, or the remedy of arbitration, if such a forum is made available under the contract. Even though the Apex Court held that in cases where the action of the State or its instrumentalities is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice or patently arbitrary, the Constitutional courts can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am of the opinion that the dispute which is raised in the present Writ Petition does not fall in the category of cases which deserve interference by this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction. Though the petitioner has pleaded that the impugned order of termination of the contract is not preceded by a final notice, respondent No.2 has averred that a notice was served on the petitioner before terminating the contract. Thus, the case involves a serious dispute on question of fact. A person aggrieved by the termination of contract is entitled for damages under law of contracts. The dispute as to whether the contract has been lawfully terminated or not and in case where the Court comes to the conclusion that the contract was unlawfully terminated whether the person who suffered such unlawful termination is entitled to damages, and if so, what is the quantum of damages, are matters which need to be adjudicated by common law courts. Merely because the agreement is terminated by the State or its instrumentalities, ordinarily the person aggrieved of such an action, cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless a case of patent arbitrariness is made out. As noted above, in my opinion, the instant case is not one which falls in the category of exceptional cases deserving interference by this Court. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail common law remedies available to him in law. As a sequel, WPMP No.9685/2011 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 11-10-2011 AM