AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amit Seth, J
The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 11.12.2025 (Annexure P/13) passed by the respondents whereby, the Works Contract" awarded to the petitioner for execution of Meda MVS, District Betul (M.P.) has been terminated, the performance bank guarantee of the petitioner has been forfeited and the petitioner firm has been debarred for a period of two years. The unexecuted contract work in question is directed to be executed through a new contractor at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The petitioner also challenges the NIT dated 12.12.2025 (Annexure P/14) whereby, the bids have been invited for completion of the contract work left unexecuted by the petitioner.
The petitioner also challenges the order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P/17) passed by the respondents whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner in terms of Clause 8.7 of the Contract Agreement has been rejected.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier, a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner against the order of termination dated 11.12.2025, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2025 passed in W.P. No. 49806/2025. Immediately on the same date, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 19.12.2025 without even affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without assigning reasons on the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner by taking this Court to the documents filed as Annexure P/11 and P/12 submits that earlier, the petitioner was granted extension of time to perform the work in question upto 13.03.2026 and while granting said extension, it was observed that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner for delay in execution of the contract work in question, therefore, the order of termination of the contract during the extended period is arbitrary and illegal. He submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to perform the remaining work in question within the said extended period and therefore, not only, the order of termination of the contract deserves to be interfered but also, the respondents are required to be restrained from getting the remaining work executed through another agency.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on caveat raises the preliminary objection as regards to maintainability of the petition. He submits that admittedly the contract work in question is a "Works Contract" as defined under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 and therefore, in view of the provision contained in Section 7 of the Act of 1983, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination of the contract or by the rejection of the appeal, the petitioner is required to move a reference before the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1983. The adjudication of disputed questions of facts in the present writ petition, in view of the availability of statutory remedy under the Act of 1983, may not be warranted. He further submits that even in the earlier round of litigation i.e. W.P. No. 49806/2025, no interim relief was granted to the petitioner and therefore, at this stage, interference into the fresh tender proceedings may not be in the larger public interest as, the work in question pertains to supply of potable drinking water to the general public at large. The petitioner has remained unsuccessful in completing the work in question and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any interim relief.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
This Court finds much force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the adjudication of disputed questions of facts on merits may not be warranted in the present proceedings in view of availability of statutory remedy of filing a reference petition before the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1983 as, the contract in question is admittedly as "Works Contract" as defined under the Act of 1983, as it is fairly well settled in law that entertaining a writ petition despite of availability of alternative remedy is a matter of judicial discretion and not compulsion. Such discretion is to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a particular case and no straight jacket formula can be prescribed.
However, the relevant extract of the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 49806/2025 filed by the petitioner reads as under :
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract terminated the same and also threatened an action of blacklisting and forfeiture of bank guarantee against the petitioner. He submits that an appeal has already been filed on 16.12.2025 with a reiteration on 17.12.2025 and the same has not been decided till date.
Since petitioner has already invoked the alternative dispute resolution mechanism and filed an appeal, we prepose to dispose of this petition with the direction to respondents to decide the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he has no concrete instruction whether the appeal has been disposed of or still pending.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that no communication has been received by the petitioner with regard to hearing of the appeal and he has not been heard till today.
Be that as it may, in case, the appeal has not been decided, the same shall be decided within a period of two weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In case, the appeal has already been decided, the order be communicated to the petitioner within two days.
It would be open to the petitioner to avail of such further remedy as may be permissible in law in case, petitioner is aggrieved by the decision on the appeal.
It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of the contention of the either party."
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on caveat is unable to dispute that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by a non-speaking order. No reasons have been assigned by the appellate authority for not accepting/rejecting the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal. Even no opportunity of hearing appears to have been afforded to the petitioner prior to rejecting the appeal vide order dated 19.12.2025.
Since there is already an order by this Court directing for decision of appeal preferred by the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P/17) rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner in terms of Clause 8.7 of the Contract Agreement is hereby quashed. The respondent/appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh in accordance with the law within a period of 15 days from today and by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Looking to the nature of work and the larger public interest involved, this Court is not inclined to stay the ongoing tender proceedings and the same shall remain subject to final outcome of the decision to be taken by the respondents on the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
In case, the petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision of appellate authority, then in terms of the earlier order dated 19.12.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 49806/2025, it shall be open for the petitioner to avail to such further remedy as may be permissible in law.
With aforesaid observation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.
It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of the contention of the either party.