SHAJI MATHEW Vs. HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the termination of a contract by Ext.P10 and a re-tender notice which is issued as Ext.P11.

(2.) THE petitioner was granted, after a tender process, two separate contracts for clear felling, collection, stacking and transportation of specified quantities of pulp wood from the "2005 Kottappara Captive Plantation" situated in Kodanad Forest Range. They are produced as Exts.P1 and P2. Requisite permissions were given as per Exts.P3 and P4. According to the petitioner, he started execution of the work but certain objections were raised by the local leaders of various Trade Unions and they dictated illegal terms regarding engagement of workmen and wages payable to them. They arrived at a settlement as evident from Ext.P5. Thereafter, the work was progressing and again one of the office bearers filed an injunction petition as I.A.No.909/2012 in O.S.No.143/2012 wherein an order was issued as per Ext.P6. The new office bearers raised unreasonable demands and obstructed the contract work and law and order situations emanated which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by W.P.(C).No.22083/2012 and an interim order was granted as per Ext.P7. The respondents are also parties therein. The petitioner, thereafter, requested for extension of three months' time to complete the work as per Ext.P8. But later the third respondent, who was hostile to the petitioner issued a show cause notice as per Ext.P9 proposing to terminate the contract which was replied by the petitioner but, without heeding to the request, Ext.P10 termination order has been issued.

(3.) IN the statement filed by the third respondent, various aspects have been explained. It is explained that in the purchase orders, phased programmes are specified in clause 2. In respect of Ext.P2 purchase order, the petitioner has delayed commencement of work. In the meeting of the Tender Committee held on 24/07/2012, he was informed about the urgency of commencing the work covered by the said purchase order. Thereafter also, there is failure. Letters were issued on 09/10/2012, 19/10/2012 and 20/10/2012 pointing out the delay in execution of the work and seeking to expedite the work. Thereafter also, there is failure. Thus, Ext.P9 show cause notice was issued. Even thereafter, he failed to commence the work and supply materials. The work was awarded for the year 2011-12 after getting special sanction for plantation well in advance to extract and transport before commencement of the working season as the company was in urgent need of the materials. The contract period was accordingly specified as 31/12/2012. In the statement, the stand taken is that the termination was required in such circumstances and the allegations of mala fides have been denied.