I. G. Electricals vs R.K. Upadhyay, C. Jairman and Managing Director and Others

Akil Kureshi, J.—Applicant-original petitioner seeks recall/review of our order dated 27.04.2012 passed in Contempt Petition No. 550 of 2012. This prayer is pressed on the ground that contempt petition came to disposed on the basis of certain statements made by the respondents which are not entirely accurate. Counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to paras 8 and 9 of our order to contend that on the basis of certain representations made by the respondents, the contempt proceeding was closed. It was pointed out to the Court that instead of proceeding ahead with finalization of the tender which was the subject matter of the original petition and the judgment by the Division Bench dated 25.11.2011, the respondents decided not to invite any tenders and to proceed on the basis of attending to the complaints on call to call basis. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even when such statement was made and the contempt petition was disposed of, the respondents had invited several tenders for the same nature of work and thereby misled the Court into disposing the contempt petition. On the other hand, learned counsel, Ms. Davawala submitted that the tenders referred to by the petitioner and copies of which are produced at Annexure C collectively, do not pertain to same nature of work, as was involved in the original petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we notice that previously when the writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 25.11.2011, Division Bench had provided that the petitioner shall be eligible to participate in future tenders and the respondents are free to advertise such tenders. In case, the respondents decided to re-tender any tender, then it shall be open for them to do so in which the petitioner also would be permitted to participate if he satisfies the eligibility criteria.

In that view of the matter, even if there was re-tendering of the same nature of work, question of contempt would not arise. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to recall our order dated 27.11.2012. In such order, we had granted specific liberty to the petitioner to file substantive petition since fresh cause of action had arisen. Having said so, we cannot lose sight of the fact that before us, respondent did contend that for smaller exchanges, it was not viable to award maintenance contract and that the respondents have therefore, decided not to call the tenders in the smaller and non-important buildings. This was one of the major considerations on the basis of which, the contempt petition was disposed of. We also notice that when such a stand was adopted before us, the respondent had already issued fresh tenders at several places. We prima facie notice that unlike in the past, instead of awarding one composite maintenance contract for an exchange building, in the fresh exercise several exchange buildings were clubbed together for awarding a particular class or classes of works. Whatever be the perception of the respondents, we would rather appreciate if such facts were brought to our notice when the contempt petition was being heard. Their firm assertion that the department decided not to invite tenders with respect to certain classes of exchanges, does appear to be somewhat out of tune. The deponent is cautioned against any such future occurrence. Subject to above observations, application is disposed of.