https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302870 The court found in favor of the petitioner, ruling that the State and its officers breached the contract by not allowing the petitioner to complete the work after an injunction order. However, the court held that the decision to award a fresh contract to other parties was within the authorities' discretion and did not warrant a writ of certiorari. It was determined that the petitioner's remedy for the breach of contract was to seek damages in a Civil Court, as there was no violation of statutory duties to invoke a writ of mandamus. The court dismissed the writ application, emphasizing that the petitioner's claim was contractual in nature. en-us Wed, 09 May 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jun 2022 12:52:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302870 The court found in favor of the petitioner, ruling that the State and its officers breached the contract by not allowing the petitioner to complete the work after an injunction order. However, the court held that the decision to award a fresh contract to other parties was within the authorities' discretion and did not warrant a writ of certiorari. It was determined that the petitioner's remedy for the breach of contract was to seek damages in a Civil Court, as there was no violation of statutory duties to invoke a writ of mandamus. The court dismissed the writ application, emphasizing that the petitioner's claim was contractual in nature. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 May 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302870