Writ jurisdiction cannot rewrite contract terms; relief must stay within the scope of the dispute challenged.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction is wide, but it cannot be used to recast contractual relations between parties. Where the dispute concerned seizure and auction steps under the State Financial Corporations Act, the High Court should have confined itself to the legality of that action. By directing a fresh loan, waiver of balance dues, and waiver of interest, it went beyond the writ challenge and effectively introduced terms of a new contract. The SC held that such relief exceeded jurisdiction and the orders were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, could set aside the auction-related action and issue directions that effectively rewrote the parties' contractual arrangement by ordering a fresh loan, waiver of balance dues, and waiver of interest.

Analysis: The Court held that although the power under Article 226 is wide, it must be exercised within the scope of the dispute before the court. The writ petition concerned the challenge to seizure and auction steps taken under the State Financial Corporations Act, but the High Court went beyond that controversy and entered the field of contractual obligations between the parties. By directing the corporation to advance a fresh loan, write off the balance amount, and consider waiver of interest, the High Court introduced terms of a fresh contract rather than adjudicating the legality of the impugned action.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction and its orders were unsustainable.

---