SAIFUDDIN USMAN ALGODIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought for following relief:

(2.) We have heard the arguments of Mr. Minhaj M. Shaikh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.

(3.) On a tender being floated for grant of fisheries work at Kadana Dam, petitioner was awarded work contract (fishing licence) on 1/7/2017 for a period of 5 years, i.e. 10/6/2022 at rate of Rs.36,90,000.00 per annum. For the year 2017-18, petitioner is said to have paid the agreed amount of contract. There were said to be certain litigations between the parties during the year 2019-20 and on account of then COVID-19 pandemic prevailing and on account of certain disputes with third parties pending petitioner is said to have not carried the fishing activities and claims to have suffered huge loss and as such he had requested respondent No.4 to provide protection. Petitioner is said to have submitted a representation on 20/3/2021 to respondent No.4 requesting said authority not to deposit the cheque dtd. 31/3/2021 issued by the petitioner and respondent No.4 is said to have directed the petitioner to deposit the amount specified in the work contract before 31.3.20221. Hence, petitioner had approached the Minister for Fisheries on 14/6/2021 and requested the authority to grant exemption in paying the work contract amounts for the year 2020-21 and 2021-22 on account of purported loss said to have been suffered by the petitioner. Respondent No.4 by communication dtd. 17/6/2021 terminated the contract and black-listed the petitioner. Petitioner is said to have approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.6982 of 2019 seeking for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein to deploy skilled persons from outside Gujarat for using the dragnets and for bringing labour from outside for cleaning of wild fishes. Thereafter petitioner had filed one more Special Civil Application No.11866 of 2021 for quashing of the communication dtd. 17/6/2021 under which the petitioner's contract came to be terminated. After considering the rival contentions and taking into consideration that petitioner had filed an undertaking to pay the outstanding amount viz. 50% of the outstanding amount within 45 days from the date of the undertaking and thereafter pay the balance 50% in equated monthly installments, Co-ordinate Bench took a lenient view and permitted the same and directed the respondent authority to revive the contract for the remaining period and it was made clear by the Co-ordinate Bench that works contract would stand terminated in the event of undertaking not being complied by petitioner. Undisputedly, as per the undertaking, petitioner did not deposit sum of Rs.36,90,000.00. On the other hand, a sum of Rs.21,90,000.00 was deposited and there was shortfall of Rs.15,00,000.00. Though Mr.Minhaj M. Shaikh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would contend that several representations had been submitted to respondents with regard to improper calculation amount due and payable, said contention cannot be accepted for the reasons more than one. Firstly, no application was filed in that regard challenging the same before this Court. However, fresh application was filed by the petitioner which came to be dismissed on 8/8/2022 on the ground that petitioner has alternative remedy to approach the Tribunal as envisaged under the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992. Petitioner having not deposited the amount as undertaken before the learned Single Judge would not be justified in assailing the impugned order and contract of the petitioner having already terminated, we see no other good ground to entertain this petition and hence petition stands dismissed.