AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Writ jurisdiction of this Court u/Art.226 of the Constitution is invoked praying for the following reliefs:
"a. That, respondents may kindly be directed to pay the refund the premium amount and due to change circumstances, agreement become frustrated, respondents may kindly be directed to not to recover amount as per agreement vide annexure P-1.
b. Representation of petition may kindly be allowed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission.
The grievance of the petitioner is that despite having been awarded the contract by respondent-Municipal Council, Morena for recovery of taxes on daily basis from hath thela, gumti and Pheri for the period from 01.06.2019 to 21.03.2020 and the petitioner having been awarded the work for collection of tax, the respondent Municipal Council, Morena conducted a drive of removal of hath thela, gumti and Pheri from the city of Morena and settling them at a fixed place. The execution of the said agreement having now been frustrated and thus impossible for reasons not attributed to the petitioner.
It is submitted that petitioner in the changed circumstances has requested the Municipal Council to modify the agreement in question but to no avail and instead the Council threatened forfeiture of 25% of the amount of premium and for invoking other penal provisions under the agreement.
Admittedly, the agreement in question i.e. Annexure P-1 does not provide in-house remedy of dispute resolution mechanism or arbitration.
It is also alleged that the execution of the contract qua the Municipal Council has not been done. Thus, remedy before the petitioner is either to seek specific performance of the contract or in the alternative seek damages for non-performance of the contract for which appropriate forum is the court of civil jurisdiction.
Moreso, the dispute to be resolved involves going into disputed questions of fact which ought not to be gone into while exercising power of judicial review.
Thus, this Court declines interference and relegates the petitioner to avail remedy under the civil law.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of sans cost.