The Calcutta High Court has held that exercise of writ jurisdiction is improper in the realm of contractual disputes over supply deadlines and extensions in government contracts, unless there is a violation of constitutional provisions or palpable illegality. This judgment upholds established Supreme Court precedent, particularly in the context of contracts with public authorities, and clarifies that such contractual issues are to be resolved in other competent forums and not through writ petitions. The decision is binding authority for subordinate courts within West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/16984/2025 of TECHMA ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0347412025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682) |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law, Contract Law (Government Contracts) |
| Questions of Law | Maintainability of writ petition in the arena of contractual disputes involving supply contracts with public authorities. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682 (Supreme Court) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Judicial review under Article 226 is limited in contractual matters, especially where public safety or essential services are involved and unless constitutional or palpable illegality is established. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Dispute arose from a supply contract for critical rail track components; petitioner repeatedly sought extension of delivery deadlines, authority initially agreed, then revoked extension citing conduct of petitioner and urgency of need, and ultimately cancelled contract and initiated penal action. Petitioner challenged this via writ petition; the Court examined maintainability. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and administrative tribunals across India |
| Follows | Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682 (SC) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the proper forum for adjudication of contractual disputes regarding supply timelines and extensions with governmental authorities.
- Clarifies that only violations of constitutional provisions or palpable illegality/arbitrariness in process will invite writ court intervention.
- Recognizes the administrative discretion of government authorities (such as Railways) in the management of supply contracts for public safety.
- Writ petitions in such contractual circumstances are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, but ordinary contractual remedies before appropriate forums remain open.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the chronology: multiple requests by the petitioner for extension of supply deadlines, which were initially granted by the authority but repealed based on the petitioner’s conduct (e.g., withdrawal of inspection call).
- Authority’s repeated communications emphasized the urgency and critical need for the items involved, as they are essential for public safety (railway track infrastructure).
- Petitioner cited Supreme Court precedent (Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682) in support of maintainability of a writ petition in contractual matters.
- The Court distinguished that, unless there is violation of constitutional principles or palpable illegality/arbitrariness, interference in the domain of contractual administration—especially where public interest and safety are concerned—would be improper under writ jurisdiction.
- Found no such violation or arbitrariness on the part of the railway authorities.
- Held that the petitioner may seek contractual remedies in appropriate forums but not by way of a writ petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Authority could not have revoked/cancelled the modification advice granting extension of delivery period.
- The authority’s reversion to the original deadline, and subsequent cancellation and penal action, was improper.
- Sought setting aside of the modification, cancellation and penal communications, and refixing of delivery period.
- Relied on Supreme Court decision (Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour) to say writ jurisdiction is maintainable for such contractual disputes involving public authorities.
- Indicated willingness to supply materials if given the extended time.
Respondent (Union of India/South-Eastern Railway):
- Purchase order already cancelled; no scope for further time extension.
- Steps to initiate penal action taken in accordance with contractual terms for non-delivery.
- Writ petition has become infructuous and should not be entertained.
Factual Background
A purchase order was issued to the petitioner on March 28, 2025 by South-Eastern Railway for supply of a critical railway track component, with a delivery window from March 29 to April 29, 2025. The petitioner requested and was initially granted an extension of the delivery period, but due to perceived lack of bona fide on the petitioner’s part (including withdrawal of goods inspection call), the extension was revoked, and the original deadline reinstated. The contract was subsequently cancelled, and penal action initiated. The petitioner challenged these actions in a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referenced the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Applied restrictively, especially in the context of contractual relationships with public authorities and government procurement, unless allegations involve constitutional violations or palpable illegality/arbitrariness.
- Relied on Supreme Court’s articulation of these limits in Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed and applied existing legal standards set by the Supreme Court regarding the limitations of writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes with public authorities.