Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioner is alleging that all the materials forming parts of lot No. HCI, (R) -1 for which he emerged as the successful bidder in the tender process initiated by MSTC were not supplied to him by Hindustan Copper Limited or whose behalf the sale was conducted by MSTC.
(2.) By letter dated March 21st, 2005 the petitioner brought to the notice of the General Manager of Hindustan Copper Limited that the materials mentioned in the list given in the letter, though had formed parts of the lot sold in the tender process, were not delivered by Hindustan Copper. By reply dated September 23rd, 2005 Hindustan Copper informed the petitioner that all the materials Hindustan Copper was to deliver were duly delivered in terms of the tender. On the strength of the decisions in Union of India etc. v. Hariram Shamji Thakkar, UJ (SC) 1974 p. 562 and dated July 19th, 1993 given in Matter No. 721 of 1993 (M/s. Bijoy Chand Ramesh Chand. & Ors. v. Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors.), counsel for the petitioner submits that on the facts of the case the writ court should interfere. Counsel for the respondents argues that the writ petition involving only questions regarding exercise of pure contractual rights of the parties is not maintainable, since in the actions of the company no public law element was involved.
(3.) In my view, the question whether the writ petition is maintainable need not be gone into in this case, since on the facts, I am of the view that the petitioner should approach the appropriate civil court for adjudication of the disputed questions of fact connected with the issue whether all the materials forming parts of the sold lot were delivered to him by Hindustan Copper. According to the petitioner the materials mentioned in the list given in his letter dated March 21st, 2005, though formed part of the lot, were not supplied by Hindustan Copper.;