- (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order passed by the Writ Court on 12th June, 2009 when the Writ Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of maintainability and further held that "the question of delay and laches would have a bearing while testing the claim of a late visitor to the Writ Court". His Lordship upheld the objection of the respondent on the ground of delay. His Lordship further on the question of enforcement of contractual claim on the writ petition held that, "from the authorities cited, the ratio which emerges, in my opinion, is that in cases involving contractual dispute, if serious factual controversy is raised, then Writ Court ought not to intervene. In the present writ petition, from the facts which I have narrated in the earlier part of this judgment, it is apparent that the disputes are of such nature for resolution of which proper trial would be necessary". The facts of the case briefly are as follows:-
(2.) A tender was floated by SAIL for sale of certain steel craps which have been described as steel rounds, C.R. Sheet, Tor Steel and plates of diverse qualities and quantities. Pursuant to the said tender, the writ petitioners/appellants were declared as the highest bidder and accordingly an offer letter was issued to the appellant on March 29,2011. It is the case of the appellants that they have offered to make payment for the said items, but at that point of time there was a labour strike in the stock-yard of SAIL and they were advised by the officers of the company to postpone the payment till the strike was lifted. We have been able to find out that there was no written communication in this regard by SAIL or even by the appellants within the period mentioned in the offer letter. Therefore, admittedly the appellants did not brought the said facts on records or addressed the said facts to the respondents. It is the further case of the appellants that a notice was put up on the notice board at the stock-yard on June 14, 1984 to the effect that all pending offers and delivery orders issued against various tenders may be treated as cancelled. As per the said notice, the customers holding delivery orders were required to surrender the delivery orders to SAIL for cancellation of the same and for arranging refund of the deposit. Such notice was disputed by the learned Advocate appearing for SAIL as well as in the affidavit filed before this Court. The stand taken by SAIL is that the appellants offer stood cancelled as they could not make payment for price of the goods within the time stipulated. There is also a denial on the part of SAIL that any advice for late payment was given by SAIL to the appellants. The appellants sent several letters to SAIL asking for revival of the offer, but no response was received.
(3.) In these circumstances, on or about October 6, 1988 a writ petition was filed praying for a declaration that the notice of June 14, 1985 is invalid, inoperative and void. Prayer was also made for revival of the offer letter. Before us it has been stated that the goods should be supplied or similar items which were the subject-matter of the tender in question should be delivered. Mr. Pradip Ghosh, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the objection raised on behalf of the respondents on the ground of delay cannot be accepted since SAIL filed their affidavit before the Trial Court almost after 18 years. He further contended that the enforcement of a contractual claim on the writ petition can be enforced in a writ proceedings since the legal right of the appellants has been breached by a State agency and he relied on a decision (Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre and Ors., 1995 5 SCC 482) in support of his contention. He submitted that in the sphere of contractual relations, the State, its instrumentality, public authorities or those whose acts bear insignia of public element, action to public duty or obligation are enjoined in a manner that is fair, just and equitable, after taking objectively all the relevant options into consideration and in a manner that is reasonable, relevant and germane to effectuate the purpose for public good and in general public interest and it must not take any irrelevant or irrational factors into consideration or appear arbitrary in its decision. Duty to act fairly is part of fair procedure envisaged under Articles 14 and 21. Every activity of the public authority or those under public duty or obligation must be informed by reason and guided by the public interest. It is the exercise of public power or action hedged by public element that becomes open to challenge. If it is shown that the exercise of power is arbitrary, unjust and unfair, it should be no answer for the State, its instrumentality, public authority or person whose acts have the insignia of public element to say that their actions are in the field of private law and they are free to prescribe any conditions or limitations in their actions as private citizens simplicitor do in the field of private law. Its action must be based on some rational and relevant principles. It must not be guided by irrational or irrelevant considerations and every administrative decision must be hedged by reasons.;