Deepika Vs. Vinod Bhalla - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - it has also been stated that the courts at ambala would enjoy the territorial jurisdiction as the parties last resided there. anjali kuklcar, learned counsel for the wife-petitioner has argued that it is not safe for the wife-petitioner to travel to ambala and attend the hearing where the wifepetitioner is unlikely to prosecute her case because of continuous threats on the telephone. in other words, the proceedings in such cases could be transferred to a court which does not even enjoy territorial jurisdiction.m.m. kumar, j.1. this is an application filed by the wife-petitioner under section 24 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 with a prayer for transfer of case titled as 'vinod bhalla v. deepika' pending before the court of district judge, arribala, to. a court of competent jurisdiction at panchkula. the afore-mentioned case has been filed by the husband-respondent under section 12 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 (for brevity 'the act') for annulment of marriage before the district judge, ambala.2. brief facts of the case are that the parties were married on 5.3.2003 at zirakpur and thereafter for one reason or the other the parties started staying separately. on 12.4.2004 a petition under section 12 of the act was filed by the husband-respondent against the wife-petitioner for annulment of the marriage levelling various allegations including the ground that she was suffering from mental illness before her marriage and the fact of this illness was not disclosed to the husband-respondent before marriage.3. the allegations levelled in the petition are that the husband-respondent and his relatives have been threatening the wife-petitioner of dire consequences if she visits ambala to defend the petition. there are averments made in paras 5 and 6 of the petition with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the courts at ambala. in para 7 it has been further averred that the wife-petitioner and her parents are being threatened on the telephone by the husband-respondent and his relatives that she would be kidnapped or eliminated if the petitioner reaches ambala to defend the petition filed by the husbandrespondent under section 12 of the act.4. in the written statement the stand taken by husband-respondent is that the mar- rfage was never consummated on account of various reasons and the allegations with re- gard to threats etc. on the telephone are false. it has also been stated that the courts at ambala would enjoy the territorial jurisdiction as the parties last resided there.5. mr. anjali kuklcar, learned counsel for the wife-petitioner has argued that it is not safe for the wife-petitioner to travel to ambala and attend the hearing where the wifepetitioner is unlikely to prosecute her case because of continuous threats on the telephone. the learned counsel has also argued that the courts at ambala do not have the jurisdiction because the parties last resided at patiala and the marriage has taken place at zirakpur. she has made some submissions on merits with regard to the mental illness of the wife-petitioner alleging that it has been caused by the husband-respondent after marriage on account of continuous torture.6. shri ashwani chopra, learned counsel for the husband-respondent has argued that there are vague allegations against the husband-respondent which will not constitute sufficient ground for directing the transfer of the petition. according to the learned counsel the fact of serious mental illness regarding the wife-petitioner was suppressed from the husband-respondent and the parties have last resided at ambala. he has also argued that a perusal of the averments made by the wife-petitioner in her petition shows that she has been working as lecturer in mata gujri college, fatehgarh, sahib and, therefore, she could easily travel to ambala. the learned counsel has distinguished the judgment of the supreme court in neelam kanwar v. devinder singh kanwar1 2000(43) a.i.j. 129 by arguing that the supreme court has felt that the wife would be put to extreme inconvenience if the proceedings were allowed to continue at the place where they were instituted by the husband. the learned counsel has maintained that there is no such plea raised in the instant petition. in support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the andhra pradesh high court, in the case of rayaprolu rajya lakshmi v. raaprolu ravindranadh sarma,2 2004(2) c.c.c. 218.7. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, i am of the considered view that the convenience of the wife-respondent has always been-kept in view in the proceedings undertaken by the husband. such guidance is available in the act itself. section 19 of the act inter-alia provides that proceedings can be initiated at the place where the husband resides. this provision has been made on account of the reason that the wife would always be dependent upon her parents for emotional, moral and in most of the cases for financial support. it appears that on account of the afore-mentioned consideration, the supreme court in neelam kanwar's case (supra) and sumita singh v. kumar sanjay and anr., a.i.r. 2002 s.c. 396 has laid down that convenience of the wife must be taken into consideration.8. the facts of the present case reveal that the wife-petitioner is resident of panchkula and it would be convenient for her to appear in the courts at panchkula. if there is any inconvenience to be suffered by her for any reason either disclosed in her application or otherwise those would be taken care of it the petition is transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction at panchkula.9. the judgment in rayaprolu rajya lakshmi's case (supra) does not help the husband-respondent because in that case the argument considered and rejected was that sec- tion 21 (a) of the act does not control the power of transfer of this court under section 24 of the code nor the same is curtailed or excluded by it. it has further been held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction is also not to be considered by this court while considering the application under section 24 of the code. in other words, the proceedings in such cases could be transferred to a court which does not even enjoy territorial jurisdiction. therefore, no help can be derived from the afore-mentioned judgment.10. for the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the case titled as vinod bhalla v. deepika pending in the court of district judge ambala filed by the husband-respondent under section 12 of the act is transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction at panchkula. the district judge, ambala, shall immediately forward the file of the above case to the addl. district judge, panchkula.11. the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the addl. district judge, panchkula on 10.8.2004.