M/S Metas Security And Fire Services Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The petitioner was awarded with a job of house keeping from June, 2020 to June, 2022. The work order was issued for the Medical Colleges in the State of Chhattisgarh and accordingly contract agreement was executed. Subsequently, the cancellation order was passed by general order dated 27-6-2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that bunch of writ petitions were filed, which were disposed of by this Court vide common order dated 16-8-2022 passed in WPC No.1583 of 2020 (M/s CDO Securities and Public Helpline Service v State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and other connected matters. Paras 3 to 10 of the order dated 16-8-2022 read as under :

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.

4) 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.

5) 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.

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

7) 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.

8) 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.

9) 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.

10) 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 petitioner, 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 this writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.