1 2025:CGHC:1637-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 905 of 2024 Ashwin Kumar Gurdhanbhai Thakkar S/o Gurdhan Bhai Thakkar Aged About 52 Years R/o Kharghoda, Gujrat, And Proprietor Of M/s Suraj Lodized Company, Main Bazar, Pandri District Surendra Nagar, Gujrat ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Hitavada Parisar, Avani Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh Through The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Raipur District Raipur Chhattistgarh 2 - Genral Manager Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha and Mr. Maulik M. Soni, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.01.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.11 11:22:24 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Maulik M. Soni, through video conferencing and Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondents on I.A. No.01/2024 is an application for condonation of delay of 90 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2024 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the appellants, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C). No. 1918/2016 (Ashwin Kumar Gurdhanbhai Thakkar vs. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and another) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner/appellant herein is the proprietor of M/s Suraj lodized Company, situated at Main Bazar, Patdi, District Surendra Nagar (Gujarat). They are manufacturer of salt and for the purpose of marketing, they iodized salt and market the same in the name and style of M/s Suraj lodized Company. The Respondents had floated Notice Inviting 3 Tenders (NIT) for purchase of iodized salt (ISI Standard). The said NIT was floated on 7.9.2013. The writ petitioner / appellant herein participated in the tender proceeding and the offer submitted by the appellant was acceptable to the Respondents. Accordingly, work orders were issued for the supply of iodized salt. The agreement between the parties, i.e., the Writ Petitioner and the Respondents, was entered upon on 10.1.2014. In terms of the agreement entered upon, the appellant made regular supplies of iodized salt for a period of around one year. After the supply of the entire salt in terms of the tender, the respondents failed to release the payments towards the purchase of salt to the appellant. On the contrary, a show-cause notice dated 26.3.2015 was issued by the respondents alleging violation of Clause 16 and Clause 16(A) of the NIT so far as the quality of salt which was tested by the Respondents. The appellant immediately gave a detailed reply denying the contents of the show-cause notice. Finally, vide the impugned Order dated 24.08.2015, the respondents passed an order denying payment of Rs.82,79,748/- to the appellant, which led the appellant to file the WPC No. 1918 of 2016, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.07.2023. Hence this writ appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of United Limited Versus Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure 4 Corporation reported in 2021(2) Scale 653 and submits that learned Single Judge failed to consider that aspect that, the respondent Corporation on 15th of January, 2014, accepted the offer submitted by the appellant on 13.12.2013 for supply of iodized Amrit Salt for Raipur, Durg and Bastar Divisions, and issued work order in favour of the appellant and the terms and conditions which are incorporated in the document relating to acceptance of offer reveal that the iodized salt is to be packed in poly pack of 50 microns 1 kilo in each packet and it is also mentioned therein that in every manufacture, 7300 Metric Tons iodized salt is to be supplied. It is further submitted that in pursuance of acceptance of tender, on 10.01.2014, an agreement was entered between the parties and the corporation accepted all Salt and there is no dispute that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement and it is also submitted that the entire quantity of iodized salt has been supplied to the respondent Corporation to their satisfaction and that, during the entire tenure of supply i.e. within a year, not a single complaint has been ascertained by the respondent Corporation about the quantity or the quality of salt. During the entire tenure of supply i.e. within a year, not a single complaint has been ascertained by the respondent Corporation about the quantity or the quality of salt. It is respectfully submitted that after supply of entire salt as well as after completion of the period of contract, on 26.03.2015, a show cause notice has been issued to the appellant whereby it was 5 informed to the appellant that there is violation of clauses 16 and 16A of the notice inviting tender with reference to the quality of salt which was tested by the Health Department. It is worthy to mention here that according to the terms 1 and conditions, the final authority to determine the standard of salt is the Salt Commissioner. It-is worthy to further mention that the salt has been tested by the Department of Bio-Chemistry, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. It is pertinent to mention here that, authority (the aforesaid authority) is not empowered to examine the standard of salt with reference to the agreement entered between the parties. The final authority is the Salt Commissioner of the place from where the delivery is made. Also, the terms and conditions also say that before receiving the delivery, the officers of the respondent Corporation shall ascertain the fact that the salt is as per the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and delivery was received and up to 26.03.2015 there is no dispute but at the time of making outstanding payment the said issued was raised and one side corporation sold out / distributed entire salt supply by the petitioner and there is no single complaint about sub standard of Salt and if there is sub standard salt supplied by the appellant then as per contract terms condition the said salt is required to returned back but the corporation had distributed all salt so while making payment raising dispute of sub standard is got-up one and after thoughts and misusing the power 6 and arbitrary. The learned Single Judge failed to consider that on 24.08.2015, the respondent Corporation passed an order and denied payment of Rs.82,79,748/- in lieu of the price of salt which was supplied by the appellant to the respondent Corporation is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principal of natural justice, and also failed to see that main ground in the order for rejection to release the dues of the appellant is that the level of iodine that is PART PER MILLION is found less than the minimum requirement that regarding the same hearing was given and the appellant has submitted that in the salt which is supplied on 02.02.2014 and 07.07.2014 which was tested in the laboratory on 18.03.2015 the Part Per Million was found less than the minimum requirement. It is further submitted that as per the condition of the contract at the time of supply 30 Part Per Million require and thereafter upto 6 months 15 Part Per Million is require to be maintain. That in the case of the appellant admittedly the salt which is supplied in the month of February 2014 and July 2014 were tested in the laboratory in the month of March 2015 i.e. after the period of 13 months and 8 months and that too without giving any prior notice or in the absence of the representative. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is 7 called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has observed that a plain reading of the agreement entered into between the parties would clearly give an indication that the nature of contract entered into between the parties was a pure commercial private contract. There was no public law character or an issue arising out of a public law function involved. Another fact is that the Respondents in-fact have raised serious dispute on the claim of the Writ Petitioner. Admittedly, the Respondents have denied the claim of the Writ Petitioner on the ground that the quality of salt supplied by the Writ Petitioner was not up to the standard stipulated and as agreed upon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of decisions have by now settled the proposition of law that Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be entertainable for enforcement of civil law arising out of a breach of contract or a tort to pay an amount of money due to the claimant. There are catena of decisions which lay down that in pure contractual disputes, the extraordinary remedy of a Writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. 9. The learned Single Judge further relied upon a judgment passed 8 by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in one of recent decisions in the matter of "M/s Biotech System Vs. State of U.P. & Ors." decided on 19.11.2020 and has further held that the Respondents, in the instant case, have categorically taken a stand and which also reflects from the show-cause notice which was issued to the Writ Petitioner even before the filing of the Writ Petition that of the salt supplied by the Writ Petitioner not being up to the standard, i.e., of 30 PPM or above. Further, the test report relied upon by the Respondents is from a laboratory of the Government itself. Now, whether the test report is genuine, whether the period on which samples were collected was a belated period and whether under the literatures available the efflux of time can cause degradation to the PPM level of salt, are all matters of evidence and are also disputed questions of fact. These are the issues which would be requiring evidence to lead on either side and which perhaps would be difficult for the Writ Court to entertain and adjudicated upon in exercise of its Writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge lastly relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Others vs. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. 2002 (1) SCC 216 and has concluded that no strong case is made out by the writ petitioner for issuance of writ of the nature that has been sought in the writ petition. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, 9 we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet