As a general rule, where a matter falls purely in the realm of contract law (i.e. where there is a contractual dispute, pure and simple, in relation to a contract with the Government/State), a writ petition cannot be moved under article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, rather private law remedies should be sought. But, it is also equally true that there is no absolute rule about the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the High Courts, under articles 32 and 226 respectively, getting inevitably ousted. Rather, the correct position is that, in an appropriate case, the writ Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputes arising out of a contract and/or involving some disputed questions of fact, provided the nature of the transaction or dispute involves some public law element. However, the distinction between public law and private law elements in the contract with Government/State is progressively getting imprecise, and at times, it becomes quite challenging to identify the line demarcating the public law and private law elements in such contracts. There, of course, cannot be a cast-iron rule for such distinction, as it depends upon the nature of the transaction in question and the consequent rights and obligations involved in the matter. In this paper, an attempt has been made to substantiate these propositions with the help of leading case laws. It is because of the subject that the author has largely relied upon the judicial pronouncements. The scope of this paper is confined to the Indian law.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
