Skyline Motors India Pvt. Ltd v. State of Uttarakhand and others

learned counsel for t he r espondent s.

2. By m eans of t his writ pet it ion, pet it ioner seeks t he following reliefs: - “ ( i) I ssue a w rit , order or dir ect ion in t he nat ure of Cert iorari, calling for original r ecord and pleased t o quash t he im pugned office order no. 279/ HQ/ 11- HB/ Volv o/ 25 dat ed 17t h May 2025 { Annexure No.1} t he of Ut t arakhand Transport Managing Direct or Corporat ion ( UTC) . t he r espondent no. 4 ( Technical) issued by i.e. ( ii) I ssue a w rit , order or dir ect ion in t he nat ure of Cert iorari, calling for original r ecord and pleased t o quash t he anot her im pugned board decision dat ed 07- 05- 2025 ( Annexur e No.2) pert ains t o decision no.14 t aken in t he 37t h board m eet ing by t he respondent no. 2. ( iii) I ssue a writ , order or dir ect ion in t he nat ure of m andam us, direct ing and com m anding t he r espondent s, per m it t he pet it ioner 1 t o run t heir 06 Volv o Buses bearing r egist rat ion no. UK- 07PA- 4396, UK- 07PA- 4397, UK- 07PA- 4398, UK- 07PA- 4399, UK- 07PA- 4401 & UK- 07PA- 4402 r espect iv ely for ext ended period of 6 m ont hs + 6 m ont hs as per t he earlier 31st and 33rd Board Meet ings dat ed 12- 07- 2022 and 01- 03- 2023 r espect iv ely and also m ake paym ent of rent as fixed bet ween t he part ies in accordance wit h t he t er m s and condit ions of t he agr eem ent dat ed 17t h March 2020.”

3. Pet it ioner is a propriet orship firm involved in public t ransport ser vice regist ered wit h Ut t arakhand Transport Corporat ion. According t o t he pet it ioner, in t he year 2020, he was awar ded a cont ract for operat ing 6 Volvo buses and agreem ent was execut ed bet ween t he pet it ioner and t he U.T.C.

4. Lear ned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it t ed t hat t he respondent U.T.C., vide it s t wo Boar d Meet ings i.e. 31 st Meet ing and 33 r d Meet ing, t ook a decision t hat , for t he purpose of grant ing Covid- 19 benefit t o t he cont ract ors, who had provided t heir buses on cont ract , aft er considering t heir r epr esent at ions, t he afor esaid agr eem ent is being ext ended for next one year and, hence, t he cont ract of t he pet it ioner w hich was going t o expir e on 17.04.2026, was ext ended t o 17.04.2027; t hat , on

17.05.2025, t he r espondent issued a let t er abr upt ly deciding t o discont inue t he pet it ioner ’s Volvo buses cit ing t he BS- 4 ban in Delhi NCR and, according t o t he pet it ioner, t he Corporat ion have no aut horit y t o review it s own order.

5. Per cont ra, lear ned counsel t he r espondent- Corporat ion subm it s t hat t he cont ract was ext ended for 6 m ont hs in 2023 and it was done only for t he person whose cont ract was ex piring in t he m ont h of March/ April, 2023, 2 inasm uch as, t hat was t he peak t im e of Char Dham Yat ra. He furt her subm it s t hat pet it ioner did not m ake any obj ect ion at t hat point of t im e, when cont ract was ext ended for a furt her period of six m ont hs and t hat no furt her ext ension will be grant ed t o t he pet it ioner t o ply t he buses. He furt her subm it s t hat , as per t he agreem ent execut ed bet ween t he pet it ioner and t he r espondent- Corporat ion, pet it ioner has a r em edy t o refer t he m at t er for t he Arbit rat ion, as m ent ioned in Clause 45 of t he afor esaid agreem ent .

6. The Hon’ble Supr em e Court in t he case of Jo sh i Te ch n o l o g i e s I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n c. v . Un i o n o f I n d i a , report ed in ( 2 0 1 5 ) 7 SCC 7 2 8 , has held in para 69 and 70 as under : “ 6 9 . The posit ion t hus sum m arised in t he afor esaid principles has t o be underst ood in t he cont ext of discussion t hat pr eceded which w e have point ed out above. As per t his, no doubt , t here is no absolut e bar t o t he m aint ainabilit y of t he w rit pet it ion even in cont ract ual m at t ers or wher e t here are disput ed quest ions of fact or even when m onet ar y claim is raised. At t he sam e t im e, discr et ion lies wit h t he High Court which under cert ain circum st ances, it can refuse t o exer cise. I t also follows t hat under t he following circum st ances, “ norm ally”, t he Court w ould not exercise such a discret ion: 6 9 .1 . The Court m ay not exam ine t he issue unless t he act ion has som e public law charact er at t ached t o it . 6 9 .2 . Whenever a part icular m ode of set t lem ent of disput e is provided in t he cont ract , t he High Court w ould refuse t o exercise it s discret ion under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion and relegat e t he part y t o t he said m ode of set t lem ent , part icularly when set t lem ent of disput es is t o be resort ed t o t hr ough t he m eans of arbit rat ion. 6 9 .3 . I f t her e ar e very serious disput ed quest ions of fact which ar e of com plex nat ur e and r equire oral evidence for t heir det erm inat ion. 6 9 .4 . Money claim s per se part icularly arising out of cont ract ual obligat ions ar e norm ally not t o be ent ert ained except in except ional circum st ances. t he legal posit ion which em erges 7 0 . Furt her, from various j udgm ent s of t his Court dealing wit h different sit uat ions/ aspect s relat ing t o cont ract s ent er ed int o by t he St at e/ public aut horit y wit h privat e part ies, can be sum m arised as under: 3 7 0 .1 . At t he st age of ent ering int o a cont ract , t he St at e act s pur ely in it s execut ive capacit y and is bound by t he obligat ions of fairness. 7 0 .2 . St at e in it s execut ive capacit y, even in t he cont ract ual field, is under obligat ion som e discrim inat ions. cannot pract ise fairly and t o act 7 0 .3 . Even in cases w her e quest ion is of choice or considerat ion of com pet ing claim s before ent ering int o t he field of cont ract , fact s have t o be invest igat ed and found before t he quest ion of a violat ion of Art icle 14 of t he Const it ut ion could arise. I f t hose fact s ar e disput ed and require assessm ent of evidence t he cor r ect ness of which can only be t est ed sat isfact orily by t aking det ailed evidence, involving exam inat ion and cr oss- exam inat ion of wit nesses, t he case could not be convenient ly or sat isfact orily decided in proceedings under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion. I n such cases t he Court can direct t he aggrieved part y t o r esort t o alt ernat e r em edy of civil suit , et c. 7 0 .4 . Writ j urisdict ion of t he High Court under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion was not int ended t o facilit at e avoidance of obligat ion volunt arily incurred. 7 0 .5 . Writ pet it ion was not m aint ainable t o avoid cont ract ual obligat ion. Occurr ence of com m ercial difficult y, inconvenience or hardship in perform ance of t he condit ions agreed t o in t he cont ract can pr ovide no j ust ificat ion in not com plying wit h t he t erm s of cont ract which t he part ies had accept ed wit h open eyes. I t cannot ever be t hat a licensee can work out t he licence if he finds it profit able t o do so : and he can challenge t he condit ions under which he agr eed t o t ake t he licence, if he finds it com m er cially inexpedient t o conduct his business. 7 0 .6 . Ordinarily, where a br each of cont ract is com plained of, t he part y com plaining of such br each m ay sue for specific perform ance of t he cont ract , if cont ract is capable of being specifically perform ed. Ot her wise, t he part y m ay sue for dam ages. t here issued where 7 0 .7 . Writ can be is execut ive act ion unsupport ed by law or even in r espect of a corporat ion t here is denial of equalit y befor e law or equal prot ect ion of law or if it can be shown t hat act ion of t he public aut horit ies was wit hout giving any hearing and violat ion of principles of nat ural j ust ice aft er holding t hat act ion could not have been t aken wit hout observing principles of nat ural j ust ice. I f t he privat e cont ract 7 0 .8 . t he bet w een St at e/ inst rum ent alit y and/ or agency of t he St at e is under t he realm of a privat e law and t her e is no elem ent of public law, t he norm al cour se for t he aggrieved part y, is t o invoke t he rem edies pr ovided under ordinary civil law rat her t han appr oaching t he High Court under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia and invoking it s ext raordinary j urisdict ion. part y 7 0 .9 . The dist inct ion bet ween public law and privat e law elem ent in t he cont ract wit h t he St at e is get t ing blurred. How ever, it has not been t ot ally oblit erat ed and wher e t he m at t er falls purely in privat e field of cont ract , t his Court has m aint ained t he posit ion t hat w rit pet it ion is not m aint ainable. The dichot om y bet ween public law and privat e law right s and r em edies w ould depend on t he fact ual m at rix of each case and t he dist inct ion bet ween t he public law rem edies and privat e law field, cannot be dem ar cat ed wit h precision. I n fact , each case has t o be exam ined, on it s fact s whet her t he cont ract ual relat ions bet ween t he part ies bear insignia of public elem ent . Once on t he fact s of a part icular case it is found t hat nat ure of t he act ivit y or cont r oversy involves public law elem ent , t hen t he m at t er can be 4 exam ined by t he High Court in w rit pet it ions under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia t o see whet her act ion of t he St at e and/ or inst rum ent alit y or agency of t he St at e is fair, j ust and equit able or t hat relevant fact ors are t aken int o considerat ion and irr elevant fact ors have not gone int o t he decision- m aking process or t hat t he decision is not arbit rary. 7 0 .1 0 . Mere r easonable or legit im at e expect at ion of a cit izen, in such a sit uat ion, m ay not by it self be a dist inct enforceable right , but failure t o consider and give due weight t o it m ay r ender t he decision arbit rary, and t his is how t he r equirem ent s of due considerat ion of a legit im at e expect at ion t he principle of non- form s part of arbit rariness. 7 0 .1 1 . The scope of j udicial review in r espect of disput es falling wit hin t he dom ain of cont ract ual obligat ions m ay be m or e lim it ed and in doubt ful cases t he part ies m ay be r elegat ed t o adj udicat ion of t heir right s by resort t o rem edies pr ovided for adj udicat ion of purely cont ract ual disput es.”

7. Sim ilarly, t he Li f e I n su r a n ce Co r p o r a t i o n o f I n d i a a n d o t h e r s v s. A sh a Go e l ( s m t .) a n d a n o t h e r , r eport ed in ( 2 0 0 1 ) 2 SCC 1 6 0 , Hon’ble Supr em e Court , while dealing wit h t he ident ical issue, proceeded t o hold in para 10 as under: raises t he case im port ant quest ions of “ 10. Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion confers ext raordinary j urisdict ion on t he High Court t o issue high pr er ogat ive w r it s for enforcem ent of t he fundam ent al right s or for any ot her pur pose. I t is wide and expansive. The Const it ut ion does not place any fet t er on exer cise of t he ext raordinary j urisdict ion. I t is left t o t he discret ion of t he High Court . Ther efor e, it cannot be laid down as a general pr oposit ion of law t hat in no case t he High Court can ent ert ain a w rit pet it ion under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion t o enforce a claim under a life insurance policy. I t is neit her possible nor proper t o enum erat e exhaust ively t he circum st ances in which such a claim can or cannot be enforced by filing a writ pet it ion. The det erm inat ion of t he quest ion depends on considerat ion of several fact or s like, whet her a writ pet it ioner is m erely at t em pt ing t o enforce his/ her cont ract ual right s or law and const it ut ional issues, t he nat ur e of t he disput e raised; t he nat ur e of inquiry necessar y for det erm inat ion of t he disput e et c. The m at t er is t o be consider ed in t he fact s and circum st ances of each case. While t he j urisdict ion of t he High Court t o ent ert ain a writ pet it ion under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion cannot be denied alt oget her, court s m ust bear in m ind t he self- im posed r est rict ion consist ent ly followed by High Court s all t hese year s aft er t he const it ut ional power cam e int o exist ence in not ent ert aining writ pet it ions filed for enforcem ent of purely cont ract ual right s and obligat ions w hich involve disput ed quest ions of fact s. The court s have consist ent ly t aken t he view t hat in a case where for det erm inat ion of t he disput e raised, it is necessary t o inquire int o fact s for det erm inat ion of which it m ay becom e necessary t o record oral evidence a pr oceeding under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion, is not t he appropriat e forum . The posit ion is also well set t led t hat if t he cont ract ent ered bet w een t he part ies provide an alt ernat e for um for r esolut ion of disput es arising from t he cont ract , t hen t he par t ies should approach t he forum agreed by t hem and t he High Court in writ j urisdict ion should not perm it t hem 5 t o bypass t he agr eed forum of disput e resolut ion. At t he cost of repet it ion it m ay be st at ed t hat in t he above discussions w e have only indicat ed som e of t he circum st ances in which t he High Court have declined t o ent er t ain pet it ions filed under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion for enfor cem ent of cont ract ual right s and obligat ion; t he discussions are not int ended t o be exhaust ive. This Court from t im e t o t im e disappr oved of a High Court ent ert aining a pet it ion under Art icle 226 of in m at t ers of enforcem ent of cont ract ual right s and obligat ion part icularly wher e t he claim by one part y is cont est ed by t he ot her and adj udicat ion of t he disput e requires inquiry int o fact s. We m ay not ice a few such cases; Mohd. Hanif v. St at e of Assam [ ( 1969) 2 SCC 782] ; Banchhanidhi Rat h v. St at e of Orissa [ ( 1972) 4 SCC 781] ; Rukm anibai Gupt a v. Collect or, Jabalpur [ ( 1980) 4 SCC 556] ; Food Corpn. of I ndia v. Jagannat h Dut t a [ 1993 Supp ( 3) SCC 635] and St at e of H.P. v. Raj a Mahendra Pal [ ( 1999) 4 SCC 43] .” t he Const it ut ion

8. The general principle which m ay be concluded is wher e t he cont ract ent er ed int o bet ween t he St at e and t he per son aggrieved is of a non- st at ut ory charact er and t he relat ionship is governed pur ely in t erm s of a cont ract bet w een t he part ies, in such sit uat ions, t he cont ract ual obligat ions are m at t ers of privat e law and a w rit would not lie t o enforce a civil liabilit y arising purely out of a cont ract . The proper r em edy in such cases would be t o file a civil suit for claim ing dam ages, inj unct ions or specific perform ance or such appropriat e reliefs in a Civil Court . Pur e cont ract ual obligat ion in t he absence of any st at ut ory com plexion would not be enforceable t hrough a writ .

9. The r em edy under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia, being an ext raordinary r em edy, it is not int ended t o be used for t he purpose of declaring privat e right s of t he part ies. I n t he case of enforcem ent of cont ract ual right s and liabilit ies, t he norm al rem edy of filing a civil suit being available t o t he aggrieved par t y, t his Court m ay not exer cise it s prerogat ive writ 6 j urisdict ion t o enforce such cont ract ual obligat ions.

10. I n t he case in hand, t he claim sought t o be set up by pet it ioner has been st rongly disput ed and t he pet it ioner has raised it s claim pert aining t o cont ract ual and com m er cial obligat ions, and t he pleadings and t he m at erial which are on recor d do not , in any m anner, indicat e t hat it is a public law rem edy, which t he pet it ioner is seeking t o invoke so as t o per suade t his Court t o exercise it s discr et ionary j urisdict ion.

11. I n view of t he foregoing discussions and keeping in view t he fact s of t he case at hand, w e are not inclined t o exer cise our ext raordinary j urisdict ion under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion.

12. The w rit pet it ion is accordingly dism issed. Ther e shall be no or der as t o cost s. ( G. N A REN D A R, C. J.) ( A LOK M A H RA , J.) Dat ed: 23.07.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cd f4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F4187 55DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH 7