AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
63 days' delay in preferring the appeal is not opposed and is, therefore, condoned.
This appeal is preferred against the order passed by learned Single Judge in WPMS No. 2002 of 2018 dated 17.07.2018.
The appellant herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of Certiorari for quashing the office memorandum dated 07.04.2018 whereby a sum of Rs. 20 Lakh was directed to be deducted from the security money payable to the appellant - writ petitioner.
By the proceedings dated 07.04.2018, the Superintending Engineer directed that a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs be deducted from the security money payable to the appellant - writ petitioner on the ground that the damages caused to the Puliya, constructed by the writ petitioner, had not been repaired / reconstructed by them.
In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted the contention of the Writ petitioner that he had constructed a Puliya for the respondent authorities; however, the same was washed away in the monsoon; there is a clause in the contract that, in case any damage is caused to the Puliya within two years, the contractor shall repair / reconstruct the same; since the contractor had not repaired / reconstructed the Puliya, his security money had been withheld by the respondents authorities; and no interference was called for. The learned Single Judge further observed that, since the petitioner had already submitted a representation which was pending before the authorities, the concerned authority should be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
The dispute in the present case is contractual in nature, and is purely in the private law realm. Ordinarily, this Court would not exercise its jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to adjudicate non statutory contractual disputes. The learned Single has, however, been considerate, and has directed the Authorities to consider the petitioner's representation.
In an intra-court appeal, interference is justified only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality or infirmity. We find no such error in the order under appeal. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.