R NARAYANA SETTY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE IN KARNATAKA BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the impugned order/notice bearing No. Sam. Kra. U. Ma. Sa. (Mam)/3297/1996-1997, dated 11-6-1996, Annexure-L is void, non est and has got no legal efficacy and for issuance of direction to respondent 2 to forbear and desist from acting on and enforcing the aforesaid order, Annexure-L, in any manner against the petitioner.

(2.) BY Annexure-L dated 11-6-1996, issued under the signatures of the Secretary M. A. Nagaraja, it has been brought to the notice of the petitioner that the committee after having examined in detail the reply of the contractor found that the reply was unsatisfactory in all respects and hence it was decided to terminate the contract and to entrust the left over work to the new contractor. It is stated that the contract is terminated with immediate effect and thereafter it is mentioned that balance of the left over work will be completed by other contractor at the cost and responsibility of the contractor.

(3.) THE notice in the petition has been challenged on number of grounds. The notice was issued in this petition to the opposite parties and statement of objections has been filed and along with that copy of the resolution passed by the market committee bearing the signature of the Administrator and the Secretary has been filed. It had been read over to me and explained. By this resolution the market committee appears to have cancelled or terminated the contract. The resolution is dated 27-5-1996, and this indicates that the contract has been cancelled on account of the fact as is mentioned in the resolution, that there had been breach of contract and replies or explanations given by the petitioner were not found to be satisfactory. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to urge and pray that he may be allowed to file amendment to the writ petition to challenge the resolution Annexure-R-1, as the petitioner had no knowledge of that when he filed the writ petition. The resolution as indicates thereunder, the contract has been terminated on the ground that the work was not completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and therefore the committee passed that resolution. Whether the work was completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract is a question of fact to be examined and to be decided on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the parties and Annexure-L so far is concerned, is really the notice of the action taken by the committee, that is cancellation of the contract although notice might not have been properly worded.