Govind Singh Mahant vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, firstly, to assail the cancellation of contract vide letter No. 1856/56M-6/21, dated 10.05.2021. The petitioner also assails the fresh NIT issued by the respondent vide notification dated 26.06.2021. Other consequential reliefs have also been sought by the petitioner.

2) The petitioner had participated in the NIT issued by the respondent No. 3 on 08.12.2020 for reconstruction of road in Bhatwari area of Gangotri region of Uttarkashi from Hina to Hina village, and emerged as the successful bidder. The respondents issued an acceptance letter on 09.03.2021 to the petitioner. The same reads as follows :

“You are hereby informed that your tender for the above noted work has been accepted by the under signed for Rs.91,60,811.83 +10,99,297.42 (GST) = Rs.1,02,60,109.25 (One Crore Two lac sixty thousand one hundred nine and twenty five paisa only) at your Tendered rates on behalf of he Government of Uttarakhand as per Approved by tender committee.

You are therefore requested to deposit a sum of Rs.6,65,026.78 (Six lac Sixty five thousand Twenty six and Seventy eight paisa only) as performance security and Rs.41,30,700.00 (Forty One lac thirty thousand seven hundred) as additional performance security, Total Rs.47,95,726.78 (forty seven lac ninty five thousand Seven hundred Twenty six and seventy eight paisa only) as Security deposit in the form of N.S.C. / F.D.R. from a Nationalized Bank duly pledged in favour of Executive Engineer P.D. P.W.D. Bhatwari and to attend the office of Executive Engineer P.D. P.W.D. Bhatwari to sign your contract papers within Seven days of receipt of the letter, failing which the acceptance of tender shall be withdrawn & Earnest Money will be forfeited in favour of Government.”

3) The case of the petitioner is that this communication was not received by the petitioner within a reasonable time, and that it was received on 22.03.2021. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner sought to comply with the conditions contained in the letter dated 09.03.2021, but he was not permitted to do so by the respondents themselves. The petitioner states that without communicating the cancellation of the tender to the petitioner, the respondents proceeded to invite a fresh tender on 26.06.2021. Only thereafter, the petitioner learnt that the contract awarded to the petitioner was cancelled on 10.05.2021.

4) The petitioner has placed on record, the cancellation letter dated 10.05.2021, as Annexure 10. The same reads as follows :

5) In the aforesaid background, it would be seen that there are disputed questions of fact, which arise for consideration with regard to the cancellation of the work order issued to the petitioner. The issue : whether the cancellation of the said work order was legally justified or not, and even if it was not legally justified, what rights which accrued to the petitioner, are issues which can only be determined in civil proceedings. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the present writ petition.

6) So far as the challenge to the fresh bidding process initiated on 26.06.2021 is concerned, since the work order issued to the petitioner was admittedly cancelled on 10.05.2021, the respondents cannot be restrained from proceeding to initiate a fresh tender process for execution of the said public work. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant any relief in that regard, as well.

7) We, therefore, dismiss the present petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his civil remedies in appropriate proceedings. No order as to costs.

8) During the pendency of the writ petition, there was an interim stay granted in respect of the fresh tender process. The fresh tender was invited, as noticed above, way back on 26.06.2021. The respondents should, therefore, examine the feasibility of proceedings with the said tender process, at this stage.