AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By the order dated 10/01/2017, learned Single Bench
dismissed the writ petition by arriving at the conclusion that the
petitioner/appellant want a writ to enforce contractual rights and
obligations that involves disputed questions of facts, and further
that the writ petition does not suggest any special feature,
warranting interference in extraordinary jurisdiction.
In appeal, the only argument advanced by learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner is that
learned Single Bench erred while arriving at the conclusion that
the writ petition involves disputed questions of facts, though
noticing that a penalty was imposed without providing an
opportunity of hearing. According to learned counsel, there being
a fragrant violation of principle of natural justice, learned Single
Bench should have entertained the petition for writ.
We do not find any merit in the argument advanced.
It is not at all disputed that the writ petition was preferred to
enforce contractual rights and obligations, and the Court refused
to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction by arriving at a definite
conclusion about non-involvement of any special feature that was
required to be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction only. The
appellant/petitioner can very well approach the other legal fora for
redressal of its grievance.
In view of it, we do not find any just reason to interfere with
the order where learned Single Bench refused to invoke the
jurisdiction vested with it as per Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
The appeal is dismissed.