RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

                       R. K. Gupta

                       Vs.

                       University of Rajasthan

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3615 of 2000
          (Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.)

                       13.02.2002

                       ORDER

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the order dated April 29,
2000 (Annexure-8) issued by the respondent University of Rajasthan, whereby the
rent of the tenanted shops was increased without affording an opportunity to the
petitioner. The petitioner has been the tenant of the respondent University in the shops
in question and it appears that the Syndicate vide Resolution dated April 22, 2000
decided to increase the rent of the said shops.

2. The learned counsel Mr. R. D. Rastogi, appearing on behalf of the respondent
University raised preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the writ petition
on the ground that in contractual matters powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India cannot be invoked. The learned counsel placed reliance on Kerala State
Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil, 1 Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the
said case indicated that the contract between the parties is in the realm of private law.
It is not a statutory contract. The disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and
conditions of such a contract could not have been agitated in a petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. Whether any amount is due and if so, how much and
refusal of the appellant to pay it is justified or not, are not matters which could have
been agitated and decided in a writ petition. The contractor should have been relegated
to other remedies."

3. I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced by Mr. R.
D. Rastogi. The ratio indicated in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil
(supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The question that
arises in the instant case does not relate to the interpretation of the terms and
conditions of the contract entered into between the parties. The precise controversy in
the instant case is as to whether prejudicial order can be passed against the party
without affording an opportunity of hearing to him.

4. In the instant case I am not deciding the rights and liabilities of the parties arising
out of a contract. The short point that requires my consideration is whether the
syndicate of the University of Rajasthan is empowered to take a decision to the
prejudice of the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. The
crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent University Mr. Rastogi
is that the petitioner ought to have instituted a civil suit and in view of alternative
remedy available to him the petitioner is not entitled to invoke jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is settled law that where the principles of natural justice are flouted this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in the matter even if the
party has efficacious alternative remedy.

6. In view of what I have discussed hereinabove, I allow the writ petition and quash
the order dated April 29, 2000 holding it arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. I however grant liberty to the respondent University to take a fresh
decision after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The parties shall bear
their own costs.

Petition allowed.

Cases Referred.

1. (2000) 6 SCC 293