AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Himanshu Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner.
The petitioner is a ‘B’ Class contractor. An e-procurement tender notice (2nd and 3rd Call) dated 07.09.2021 was issued by the Chhattisgarh Police Housing Corporation Ltd. (for short, the Housing Corporation) inviting tenders for construction of Fortified Police Stations at 12 places under the Special Infrastructure Scheme (for short, SIS). One such place for construction of Fortified Police Station is Police Station, Saraipali, at serial No. 12 of the said e-procurement tender notice, which is in the District of Mahasamund. In respect of Police Station at Saraipali, it was the second call.
The petitioner was found eligible vide order dated 09.12.2021 and was directed to execute the formalities. The petitioner sought for 15 days’ time to execute the formalities by his letter dated 24.12.2021. On completion of the formalities, work order was issued to the petitioner on 28.02.2022.
The petitioner wrote certain letters for clearing the trees and old structures from the site. While the respondent authorities, by letter dated 18.05.2022, directed the petitioner to start execution of the work, the petitioner continued to make requests for clearance of site.
It is pleaded by the petitioner that a notice dated 08.07.2022 was issued by the respondents stating that there was no progress of any work and asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the work has not been started and in absence of any specific response, it was indicated that the agreement was liable to be cancelled in view of clause 3(i) of the agreement.
In the reply to the show cause notice dated 08.07.2022, it was reiterated that though the trees were cut on 20.04.2022, logs were lying on the site and that the petitioner was not provided with the lay-out. It is further pleaded by the petitioner in the reply dated 11.07.2022 that copy of the agreement had also not been furnished to him.
Subsequent thereto, a letter dated 29.07.2022 was issued cancelling the agreement and thereafter, another e-procurement tender notice dated 05.08.2022 was issued.
Challenging the aforesaid cancellation order dated 29.07.2022 and the issuance of the subsequent e-procurement tender notice dated 05.08.2022, WPC No. 3498/2022 was filed.
WPC No. 3856/2022 was filed with the prayers for quashing the cancellation of agreement dated 29.07.2022 and the e-procurement tender notice dated 05.08.2022 and subsequent opening of the financial bid on 05.09.2022.
Since both the petitions arise out of same cause of action, they are taken up for consideration together.
WPC No. 3498/2022 was listed on 16.08.2022. On that date, a prayer was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for taking up the matter after two weeks.
In WPC No. 3856/2022, the petitioner had brought on record a letter dated 05.08.2022, which goes to show that in terms of arbitration clause at clause 28 of the agreement, the petitioner may be present on 11:00 am on 10.08.2022.
In WPC 3856/2022, it is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 05.08.2022, the petitioner, on 16.08.2022, requested for supply of a copy of the agreement and subsequently, an application was also filed on 24.08.2022 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, for short, RTI Act, for supply of a copy of the agreement.
There is no averment in the writ petition as to whether the petitioner had appeared before the respondents on 10.08.2022. However, drawing attention to page 34 of the petition (Annexure P/13), Mr. Pandey submits that because of illness, the petitioner could not appear on 10.08.2022 but had appeared on 12.08.2022 and had prayed for copy of the agreement.
As, admittedly, there is an arbitration clause, we are not inclined to entertain these writ petitions. In neither of the petitions, prayer has been made for directing the respondents to supply copy of the agreement. In the event, the respondents do not supply copy of the agreement to the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate orders. Petitioner is also at liberty to avail remedy as provided in the agreement.
With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.