GONDWANA ENGINEERS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Termination of the contract awarded to the Petitioner as per Annexure P/1 order dated 15.07.2020 without issuing any prior notice or opportunity of hearing despite the specific clause contained (Clause 14) in Annexure P/3 Notice Inviting Tender ('NIT') made the Petitioner to approach this Court challenging the said order and also praying for interdicting the steps being taken by the 5th Respondent-Municipal Corporation with regard to issuance of further NIT for completion of the works. There is also a contention that the bank guarantee furnished by the Petitioner has been en-cashed quite arbitrarily and without issuing notice. The prayers are in the following terms :

(2.) Heard Shri Jatin Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Shri Ramakant Mishra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General representing the Union of India, Shri Vikram Sharma, the learned Deputy Government Advocate representing the State and Shri H.B. Agrawal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 5th Respondent-Municipal Corporation.

(3.) With regard to the sequence of events, the learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that Annexure P/3 NIT was issued by the 5th Respondent-Municipal Corporation on 15.03.2017 for Augmentation and Reorganisation to Jagdalpur Water Supply Scheme under Amrut Mission, Government of Chhattisgarh on Turn Key Basis (Form F). On coming out successful, the Petitioner was issued Annexure P/4 'Letter of Intent' on 29.05.2017 and Annexure P/5 agreement was executed between the Petitioner and the 5th Respondent-Municipal Corporation on 08.06.2017, in turn, leading to issuance of Annexure P/6 work order in favour of the Petitioner on 15.06.2017. It is stated that various letters/communications were issued to the Petitioner through the 5th Respondent-Municipal Corporation to grant permission for removing some obstructions and further to procure and grant of approval/permission of the Public Works Department/such other Authorities wherein there was inordinate delay. A joint meeting was convened, also with the involvement of the 4th Respondent/Project Consultant and it was decided on 03.01.2020 to grant extension of time by 12 months, by way of two phases, which allegedly was not given effect to by the 5th Respondent-Municipal Corporation. On 13.01.2020, the 5th Respondent-Municipal Corporation admittedly required the Petitioner to renew the bank guaranties till December 2020, failing which the bank guarantee would be en-cashed by them. According to the Petitioner, the bank guaranties were to expire on 09.02.2020, 31.05.2020 and 21.06.2020 and hence they were sought to be renewed by the 5th Respondent-Municipal Corporation before 20.01.2020. In response to the letter dated 13.01.2020 of the 5th Respondent-Municipal Corporation, asking for renewal of bank guaranties, the Petitioner sent Annexure P/18 reply on 16.01.2020. Without any regard to the same, the 5th Respondent-Municipal Corporation sent Annexure P/19 to the Bankers to the Petitioner on 27.01.2020 to en-cash the bank guarantee of Rs.96,40,000/- that was to expire on 09.02.2020, though it was objected by the Petitioner vide Annexure P/20 dated 29.01.2020.