M/S. SOMA ISOLUX NH ONE TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED versus HARISH KUMAR PURI & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 17-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 617 
M/S. SOMA ISOLUX NH ONE TOLLWAY 
PRIVATE LIMITED 
v. 
HARISH KUMAR PURI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4611 of 2014) 
APRIL 17, 2014 
\[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
A 
Constitution of India : 
C 
Art. 226 -
Writ petition in public interest - National 
. Highway (NH1) project -
Contract between appellant-
company and NHAI to construct certain portion of Highway 
on built, operate, trade (BOT) mode- Investment to be made 
by appellant by income generated from toll collection - In 
D 
other writ petitions the issue of shifting of Toll Plaza 
adjudicated and attained finality- Matter again agitated and, 
while deciding continuance or otherwise of an interim order 
in a challenge to show cause notice, High Court in effect 
cancelling the agreement and saddling the appellant-
E 
contractor and its director with huge amounts of fine - Held: 
When Division Bencf];of High Court had already settled the 
dispute by a speaking judgment permitting the shifting of Toll 
· Plaza, no legal authority was left with the Chairman, NHAI to 
issue a letter questioning the shifting - High Court also by F 
impugned order, ignored the fact that controversy regarding 
shifting of Toll Plaza although had been set at rest by a 
judicial verdict of High Court, NHAI still insisted that it cannot 
permit the shifting when its I.E. (Independent Engineer) had 
earlier approved of the same and accepted by NHAI in view G 
of specific clause in the agreement to that effect- High Court 
has further failed to visualise that the matter with which it was 
seized was limited to the question as to whether the order by 
which the show cause notice issued by the NHAI to appellant 
concessionaire-company was ordered to be kept in abeyance H 
617 
.. 
' 618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 14S.C.R. 
A 
was fit to be vacated or not and went into the question whether . 
the appellant-company was fit to continue with:th~ project 
whichhad been handed over to it by NHAI by virtue ofa valid 
agreement executed between the parties, primarily on the 
ground of delay without really entering into the cause of delay 
B and considering the plea at whose instance the contr13ctua/ 
obligations had been violated- Impugned directions of High 
Court are set aside, and appellant is permitted to restore the 
construction of the balance stretch/area of H/ghway project- · 
. NHAI is directed to permit the appellant to shift the Toll Plaza · 
· c as indicated in judgment - Directions .given to appellant to 
·· complete entire construction of Highway and report the 
. progress toNHAI. 
Res judicata: 
Constructive res-judicata -
Issue of shifting Toll Plaza 
D decided by single Judge of High Court and decision affirmed 
in Letters Patent appeal - Matter attained finality ·:C.. Issue 
raised again - Held: A question or an issue which has been · 
raised earlier before High Court, adjudicated and on which a 
final judgment/order was delivered, cannot be allowed to be 
E raised for the second time as that would be clearly barred by 
"the principle of constructive res judicata -
Therefore, the 
issue of shifting of Toll Plaza which fi~lly was dismissed was 
not permissible to be referred for arbitration once on the 
judicial side permission to shift the Toll Plaza was permitted 
F by High Court-Arbitration. 
Contract: 
Terms of contract- Held: In case of statutory contract, 
the terms of the statute prevail over the terms of the contract 
G - But, once the contract is signed by the contracting parties, 
obviously the contract having assumed the legal authority of 
a concluded contract would govern the terms and conditions 
of the contract between the parties who have ~igned it and 
thereafter it would be binding on the contracting partie~: .··. 
-, ·_, ·. 
H 
• 
MIS. SOMA ISOLUX NH ONE TOLLWAY PVT. LTD. v 
619 
HARISH KUMAR PURI 
A writ petition was filed before the High Court as a A 
Public Interest Litigation with the object of improving 
management of traffic on G.T. Road (National Highway 
No. 1) in the interest of the commuters and the public at 
large. The writ petitioner had lost his son in a road 
accident in 1996 on the said highway. During the B 
. pendency of the writ petition, a concession agreement 
was entered into between the appellant company and 
respondent authorities to construct, operate and 
maintain a project namely 6 laning of a part of NH 1 from 
KM 96.00 to KM 387.100. As regards financing and C 
investment to Highway Project, th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.