COMMISSIONER Vs. SHAKTHI DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dtd. 17/6/2022 in Writ Petition No.3230/2020.

(2.) The said writ petition was filed at the instance of M/s.Shakti Developers Private Limited who is respondent No.1 in the present appeal. It was urged before the learned Single Judge by the petitioner - respondent No.1 herein that the petitioner in response to a tender notification issued by the appellants - Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), submitted a tender and after compliance of all necessary formalities, the work of construction of skywalk at Satellite Bus Stand, Bengaluru - Mysuru Road from Satellite Bus Stand to Ramani Timber Mark on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer basis for a period of 30 years was granted to the petitioner. An agreement was also executed in favour of the petitioner in this regard. When the work of installation of the skywalk was under progress, the order dtd. 23/12/2019 was passed by respondent No.2/appellant No.2 herein directing the Competent Authority to cancel the agreement executed in favour of the petitioner and to forfeit the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. Subsequently by another order dtd. 7/1/2020, the agreement with regard to construction of skywalk was cancelled and the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner was forfeited.

(3.) The writ petition was opposed by the appellants/ respondents on the ground that the petitioner could not complete the work allotted to it within the stipulated period. The learned Single Judge on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondents arrived at a conclusion that the appellants/respondents were bound to permit the petitioner to execute the project within a time frame that may be fixed by the respondents. The petition was allowed and the orders impugned in the petition were quashed. The petitioner was permitted to install the skywalk as per the letter dtd. 25/9/2019 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. On a failure to implement the project within the stipulated period by the petitioner, the respondents were at liberty to take steps to terminate the contract without any further notice to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge also issued certain directions so as to expedite the installation of the skywalk. By clause (ii) of the directions, the learned Single Judge directed that no agency of the State shall hamper/obstruct/object in the work of installation of the skywalk. This order of the learned Single Judge is challenged in the appeal.