R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 10-8-1989 (Annexure I to the writ petition), cancelling the allotment of plot in Phase-II, NOIDA in accordance with the terms of the lease deed by NOIDA authorities. THE grievance of the petitioner is that the order of cancellation is arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and against the terms of the lease deed, executed between the NOIDA authorities and the petitioner.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that relations between the parties are governed by the lease deed, which is a non-statutory contract and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is not disputed that the lease deed executed between the petitioner and NOIDA authorities is a non-statutory contract. In view of the series of decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, it is now settled that in case of non-statutory contract rights are governed by the terms of the contract and writ petition against the breach of such a contract is not maintainable. Reference in this connection may be made to one of the latest decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1076, where it was laid down that after the contract had been entered into between the State ?nd a citizen, the relations are no longer governed and regulated by the constitutional provision but by the terms of the contract and for the enforcement of contractual right writ petition is not maintainable. Relevant extracts contained in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court are quoted below "21. There is a line of decisions where the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract, no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple : Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar (1977) 3 SCR 249 : AIR 1977 SC 1496, Premji Bhai Parmar v. Delhi Development Authority (1980) 2 SCR 704 : AIR 1980 SC 738 and D. F. O. v. Biswanath Tea Company Ltd. (1981) 3 SCR : AIR 1981 SC 1368, 22. In view of the authoritative judicial pronouncements of this Court in the series of cases dealing with the scope of interference of a High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases of non-statutory concluded contracts like the one in hand, we are constrained to hold that the High Court in the present case has gone wrong in its finding that there is arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the appellants herein in increasing the cost of the houses/flats and the rate of monthly instalments and giving directions in the writ petitions as prayed for." Learned counsel for the petitioner has however, relied upon the case The D. F. O. South Kheri v. Ram Sanehi Singh AIR 1973 SC 205 for the proposition that even in the contractual matters writ petition under , Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. What was complained of in the case of Ram Sanehi Singh was an order of an authority invested with the statutory powers. The Supreme Court itself in a subsequent case of M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1496 has observed that in Ram Sanehi's case (supra) although the source of right was contractual but the impugned order was passed in exercise of statutory powers. Relevant passage from paragraph 18 of the aforesaid decision is quoted below : "The authorities cited were : the DFO, South Kheri v. Ram Sanehi Singh AIR 1973 SC 205 (supra) all that was decided, relying upon K. N. Gurswamy v. State of Mysore AIR 1954 SC 592 (supra) was that, where the source of a right was contractual but the action complained of was the purported exercise of a statutory power, relief could , be claimed under Article 226."
(3.) AS the matter relates to the realm of non-statutory contract between the petitioner and the respondents, this writ petition is not maintainable and a proper forum for such type of dispute is Civil Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders os to costs. Petition dismissed.;