BASANT BAGDE Vs. HINDUSTAN PREFAB LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein had filed Writ Petition (C) 13836/2009 seeking following prayers:-

(2.) When this writ petition came up for preliminary hearing on 17 th December, 2009 before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge issued limited notice pertaining to prayer (iv) and (v) only and refused to issue notice in respect of prayers (i) to (iii). As far as prayers (i) to (iii) are concerned, the appellant herein had sought direction against the respondents to make the payment at the increased rate from Rs. 24/- to Rs. 50/- in respect of the contract awarded by the respondent to the appellant. We may state that the respondent had floated tenders for construction of Houses with Infrastructure under BSUP Scheme of JNNURM in Raipur City. The tenderers were required to submit their bid on percentage basis at par, over or below the rates based upon Chhattisgarh PWD Schedule of Rates (SOR 1999). The appellant was awarded the contract on rates quoted by him @ 59% above SOR 1999. However, between 21 st March, 2008 and 3 rd April, 2008, the rate of steel was increased from Rs. 24 per kg to Rs. 50 per kg in the SOR 1999. On that basis the appellant had claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of the said enhanced rate in steel from Rs. 24 per kg to Rs. 50 per kg w.e.f. 1 st April, 1999. This demand was rejected by the respondent. That was the reason for making a prayer for payment @ Rs. 50 per kg instead of Rs. 24 per kg against the consumption of the steel in the contract. The learned Single Judge refused to issue the notice on these prayers in his order dated 17 th December, 2009 and took the view that the stand taken by the respondent does not require interference while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At best there is a commercial dispute between the appellant and the respondent M/s Hindustan Prefab Ltd. to which the appellant had adequate remedy by invoking arbitration clause or invoking jurisdiction of a civil court. Challenging this order dated 9 th December, 2009 whereby the notice was issued to limited extent, the appellants have filed LPA 7/2010.

(3.) While this appeal was pending, the writ petition on which notice was issued in respect of prayers (iv) and (v) was ultimately decided by the learned Single Judge after the completion of pleadings on that aspect and hearing the oral submissions of the parties. It has culminated in the judgment dated 27 th September, 2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition even as regards prayer (iv) and (v) finding no merits in those prayers as well. It is for this reason, two appeals i.e. LPA 7/2010 and 176/2011 were clubbed and heard together which we propose to decide by means of present judgment.