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.