Specific performance of contract cannot be granted by writ of mandamus under Article 226: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, no writ of mandamus can be issued granting the writ for specific performance of the contract/ work order [Municipal Council Gondia v. Divi Works and Suppliers, HUF and Others]..A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna noted that it shall be open for the respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings before the civil court for the damages or losses, if any suffered."No writ of mandamus could have been issued virtually granting the writ for specific performance of the contract/work order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," the Court observed.The Bench was hearing an appeal assailing the order of the Bombay High Court that had ruled ordered specific performance of a contract on a petition under Article 226. .The appellant, Municipal Council Gondia which runs educational institutions/schools needed benches, almirahs and tables in a school run by it. In 2018, the appellant passed a resolution for purchasing the same and subsequently, bids were invited.The respondent came out as a successful bidder and the same was sanctioned by the Standing Committee of the appellant. Consequently, an agreement came to be executed between respondent and appellant Since the schools were closed due to onset of COVID-19 pandemic, the appellant suspended the work order with the respondent until further orders.Aggrieved, the respondent moved a writ petition before the High Court, which had set aside the action of the appellant and held that the respondent is entitled to make the supply in pursuance of the work order.Aggrieved, the appellant moved the present appeal before the Supreme Court..On February 7, 2022, the respondent had informed the Court that they have already manufactured the goods that are customized and therefore, if the appellant is not directed to lift the customized manufactured goods that the respondent had made as per the work order, the respondent will suffer a huge loss.The Court had then passed an order directing officials of the appellant to visit the place where the manufactured goods are kept and identify the goods which are immediately required, at this stage which shall not be less than 25% of the total quantity manufactured. It had also ordered the appellant to make a schedule with respect to the balance goods manufactured and when the goods will be lifted and payment shall be made.Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appearing for the appellant on February 28, told the Court that pursuant to the February 7 order, an official of the Municipal Council had made a visit to the place of the respondent. On inspection of the goods, it was seen that the goods do not meet the requirement of the work order and that they were not prepared for the Council as claimed by the respondents. It was argued that since there manufactured goods are not available as per the specifications and the requirements of the appellant and as per the work order, there is no question of accepting any goods as per the work order as directed by the High Court..Findings of the Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court noted that the High Court was made to believe that respondent had already manufactured the goods which are customised and as per the specifications and the work order. However, nothing was brought on record that goods were in fact and actually manufactured by the respondent, as per the specifications and the requirements of the appellant and as per the work order, the top court noted."In absence of any evidence and material on record and there being disputed questions of facts the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order directing the Council to continue the work order and accept the goods from the original writ petitioner No.1 and to make the payments as per the work order."Even otherwise, a writ or mandamus could not have been issued for specific performance of contract in a writ petition under Article 226, the Court held..Senior Advocate RL Khapre argued on behalf of the respondent..[Read Judgment]