Smt. Shashikala Singh vs. Commissioner CGST , Central Excise Lko. And Others
Held
The Court held that a writ of Mandamus is not maintainable for the enforcement of private contracts between private parties. The Court reasoned that the jurisdiction to issue writs, such as Mandamus, is typically exercised to enforce statutory duties or public obligations, not to compel individuals to fulfill contractual obligations arising from private agreements. The judgment explicitly stated that the writ petition sought interference in a private contract. Therefore, the Court found the petition to be without merit on the grounds of maintainability. No specific provisions of the CGST Act or related rules were discussed in relation to this finding.
Facts
The petitioner, Smt. Shashikala Singh, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus directing respondents No. 2 and 3 to install a bio-diesel pump at a specified plot of land in Unnao district, as per an alleged agreement. The respondents, including the Commissioner CGST, Central Excise Lko., raised a preliminary objection. Counsel for the respondents pointed out that respondents No. 2 and 3 are private individuals and the dispute pertains to a private contract between the petitioner and these private parties. The court noted that the writ petition sought specific performance of this private contract.
Key Issues
1. Whether a writ of Mandamus can be issued to compel private parties to perform their obligations under a private contract? (Question of law) Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to enforce an agreement for the installation of a bio-diesel pump. (No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited in the judgment for the petitioner's argument.) Respondent's Argument: The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because it sought to enforce a private contract between private parties. They contended that the court's writ jurisdiction is not meant for compelling specific performance of private agreements. (No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited in the judgment for the respondent's argument.)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44517-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5686 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Shashikala Singh Respondent :- Commissioner Cgst , Central Excise Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar Mishra,Shivanshi Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Dipak Seth,A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.D. Nag, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 & 4.
This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "i)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties No.-2 to 3 to install the bio diesel pump at Plot No.105 Village- Atwa, Taluka- Safipur, District- Unnao as per the agreement as soon as possible in the interest of justice."
Sri K.D. Nag, learned counsel for the respondent, has taken a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition in pointing out that the respondent nos.2 and 3 are private persons and there was a private contract between the petitioner and the respondent nos.2 and 3 with regard to the installation of bio diesel pump. The petitioner wants this Court to issue
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.