https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174055 Writ relief was unavailable where the petitioners lacked a sufficient factual basis for locus standi, the directly affected buyer had already litigated, and the represented associations failed to identify the persons, transactions, or individual grievances involved. The dispute also concerned enforcement of contractual clauses, breach, and damages on contested facts, which required evidence and fact-finding and was therefore unsuitable for Article 226. The impugned price revisions were not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable, as the contract did not prohibit revision and the change was supported by an expert committee recommendation. Legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel were inapplicable, so no writ relief could be granted. en-us Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:40:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174055 Writ relief was unavailable where the petitioners lacked a sufficient factual basis for locus standi, the directly affected buyer had already litigated, and the represented associations failed to identify the persons, transactions, or individual grievances involved. The dispute also concerned enforcement of contractual clauses, breach, and damages on contested facts, which required evidence and fact-finding and was therefore unsuitable for Article 226. The impugned price revisions were not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable, as the contract did not prohibit revision and the change was supported by an expert committee recommendation. Legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel were inapplicable, so no writ relief could be granted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174055