LexFOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. versus M/S SEIL LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 663
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
v.
M/S SEIL LTD. & ORS.
(C.A. No. 370 of 2008)
JANUARY 11, 2008
B
{S.B. SINHA AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.)
• +
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 226 rlw Articles 12, 14, 298 and 299 - Government c
contracts - Supply of levy sugar- FCI withholding payment -
Writ petition by supplier- Maintainability of- Held. Contractual
disputes involving public law element are amenable to writ
jurisdiction - There did not exist any factual dispute - FCI,
being a State within the meaning of Article 12 withheld payment
without any legal justification - Single Judge rightly reviewed D
the judgment and directed payment of interest - Review -
Interest - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - S.3(2)(f) -
Supply of levy sugar.
Article 226 - Writ petition - Judgment- Review of- Held: E
A writ court exercises its power of review under Article 226 itself
- It not only acts as a court of law but also as a court of equity
-- Equity.
,.
Legal Maxim - Actus curiae nemamim gravibit -
Applicability of.
F
•
'
The respondents supplied levy sugar in terms of
s.3(2)(f) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to the
. appellant-Food Corporation of India as also to the UPPCF.
Claims were lodged for the price of levy sugar both with
the FCI as also with the Central Government. The G
"""'
Government sanctioned the claim in respect of the sugar
.,,
supplied to the UPPCF, but the appellant withheld the
payment, inter alia, on the premise of shortage in supply
of sugar during the period 1983 to 1995, and demanded
663
H
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 1 S.C.R.
A for a no dues certificate. On writ petitions filed by the
respondents, the Single Judge of the High Court
classified the cases into two categories: (i) supplies made
to the State Government, the Central Government and
their agencies, and (ii) supplies made to the appellant. In
B respect of (i) the Court opined that a direction for making
the payment should be made, but as regards (ii), the
respondents were relegated to the remedy of a civil suit
+ ;
for recovery of their dues. On a review petition filed by
the respondents, the Single Judge directed payment of
c interest as well. The writ appeals of the FCI having been
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, it filed
the instant appeals.
It was contended for the appellants, inter alia, that
transactions between the parties being contractual in
D nature, no writ petition was maintainable and; in any event,
the direction to pay interest in review proceedings was
,..
impermissible.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
E
HELD: 1.1 Contractual disputes involving public law
element are amenable to writ jurisdiction. When supply
of sugar was made in terms of a statutory order as also
on the directions issued by the Central Government and
in the cases there did not exist any factual dispute, there
F is no reason as to why the writ petitions would not be
..
maintainable. Article 14 of the Constitution of India has
received a liberal interpretation over the years. Its scope
has also been expanded by creative interpretation of the
court. The law has developed in this filed to a great extent.
G [Para 10,17] [669-D, E; 672-B, C]
ABL International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee
Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 553 - relied
on.
H
Mis Burmah Construction Co. vs. The State of Orissa &
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. v.
665
MIS SEIL LTD. & ORS .
...
A
Ors. AIR 1962 SC 1320 - held in applicable.
A
1.2 The High Court, in an appropriate case, may grant
such relief to which the writ petitioner would be entitled
to in law as well as in equity. In the instant case, no
disputed question of fact is involved. The Central B
Government not only scrutinized the bills but also verified
~ .
the claims of the respondents. A direction was issued to
make payment. Appellant, which is a 'State' within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, withheld
payment without any legal justification. It could not have c
withheld payment on the basis of the purported shortages
in supply of sugar under the contracts made by the
respondents many many years back, save and except
under the terms of binding contract. [Para 17, 10, 12]
[669-F, H; 670-A; 672-C, DJ
2. A writ court exercises its power of review under D
Article 226 of the Constitution of India itself. While
exercising the said jurisdiction, it notExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.