V.M.Sahai, R.N.Misra - (1.) -By way of this writ petition, the petitioner wants to get reliefs regarding contractual matter.
(2.) WE have heard Shri M. B. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondents. In the writ petition it has been alleged that the petitioner was appointed as L.I.C. agent and his agency was terminated and the appeal was also dismissed. He has sought the reliefs for quashing the orders dated 22.12.2004 passed by the respondent No. 2, dated 2.4.2004 passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing the appeal, dated 23.4.2001 passed by the respondent No. 4 terminating his agency and forfeiting the whole commission and dated 5.12.2000 passed by the respondent No. 4 cancelling his appointment. He has further prayed for restoration of his agency and refund of the amount of the forfeited commission. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised the question of jurisdiction. According to him, this is a contractual matter and cannot be agitated in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) IN the case of National Highways Authority of INdia v. Ganga Enterprises and another, 2003 (7) SCC 410 : 2003 (5) AWC 4478 (SC), the following observation has been made by the Apex Court : "It is settled law that disputes relating to contract cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia." In the said case the writ petition was entertained, which was based on the contract. The Apex Court observed that the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of maintainability.;