M/s Call me Services vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

Petitioner in WPC No. 953 of 2023 was issued work order for providing security services and house keeping. Petitioners in WPC Nos. 955 of 2023 and 959 of 2023 were awarded work orders for providing security services. In respect of WPC Nos. 962 of 2023 and 965 of 2023, the petitioners were awarded work orders for house keeping.

In all these cases, the work orders were issued for the aforesaid purposes in respect of various medical colleges in the State of Chhattisgarh. The work orders were issued for a period of two years and, accordingly, contract agreements were also executed. Subsequently, the orders of cancellation were issued cancelling the work orders by general order dated 27.01.2023.

The present petitioners in this batch of writ petitions along with many similarly situated entities preferred writ petitions before this Court and the same were disposed of by an order dated 16.08.2022 (WPC No. 1583 of 2020 and batch). It would be appropriate to extract paragraphs 3 to 10 of the said order, which read as follows:

“3. In all these cases, work orders were issued for a period of two years and, accordingly, contract agreements were also executed. It is not in dispute that notwithstanding the order of cancellation, by virtue of various interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioners are continuing till today. It is also not in dispute that the term of the contract, however, has since expired in all these cases.

Clause 6 of the Contract Agreement provides that in case of any dispute or differences arising under the terms of the agreement, the same shall be settled by reference to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by Director of Medical Education, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and that the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall be applicable.

Clause 8 of the Contract Agreement provides that though the contract is valid for a period of two years from the date of signing of the contract, the contract can be extended for one year for maximum two terms, on the same same terms and conditions with mutual consent.

It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that since the petitions are pending, the respondents have not issued any fresh notice inviting tender.

Having regard to the fact that period of two years has since expired and there is an arbitration clause, this Court is not inclined to examine the validity of the order of cancellation. The petitioners had also not invoked arbitration clause at the first instance.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be futile to expect that there will be mutual consent for extension of the term when orders of cancellation had been issued by the respondents.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that petitions have spent their force and have become infructuous. Accordingly, the same are disposed of as infructuous. The respondents will be at liberty to issue fresh notice inviting tender.

Considering the matter in its entirety, we permit the petitioners to continue till such time fresh work orders are issued after issuing notice inviting tender.”

It appears that much after disposal of the said writ petitions, on request being made by the petitioners, Arbitrators have been appointed.

On a specific query of the Court, Mr. Rao submits that the dispute referred to the Arbitrator is in relation to the period of extension.

Contention advanced by Mr. Rao is that till such time the Arbitrator decides the issue raised by the petitioners, the notice inviting tender is required to be stayed.

The contention is misconceived.

We are given to understand that the aforesaid order was not put to challenge.

This Court in the order dated 16.08.2022 had observed that given the fact that order of cancellation was passed, it would be futile to expect that there would be mutual consent for extension of the term and accordingly, the order of cancellation had not been interfered with on the ground that the writ petitions had become infructuous. This Court, while disposing of the said writ petitions by the order dated 16.08.2022, permitted the petitioners to continue till such time fresh work orders are issued after issuing notice inviting tender.

Having regard to the order dated 16.08.2022 and the sequence of events, no case is made out to interfere with the fresh notice inviting tender(s), which are subject matter in these writ petitions.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.