SENIOR MANAGER Vs. LAKSHMI TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 27.04.2012 passed in W.P.Nos.12458 and 12462 of 2011.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Since, in the both the writ petitions, the parties are one and the same, and the issues involved are also one and the same, for the sake of convenience the facts in W.P.No.12458 of 2011 alone are being referred to by us.

(3.) It is stated that the Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (CPCL), the appellant Corporation herein, is a Public Limited Company and is a Group Company of Indian Oil Corporation. The Corporation invited tenders for providing transportation services at their Manali Refinery by hiring (i) Ambassador Car (Non A/C and AC) (W.P.No.12458 of 2011) (ii) Seven Tempo Travellers (W.P.No.12462 of 2011) at their Manali Refinery. The respondent herein writ petitioner, who is a Transport Contractor, sent her bid on 10.10.2005 for both the contracts. Later it was informed by the Appellant-Corporation that she was the successful bidder for both the contracts, and orders of contract were also received by the respondent writ petitioner through fax on 27.01.2006. On the basis of that the respondent writ petitioner also started operating transport facilities since 01.02.2006 as per the tender conditions. Later on the respondent writ petitioner was informed by the appellant Corporation through their letter dated 13.02.2006 that during execution of the contract any additional quantity over and above SOR quantity shall be operated as per rates finalized for similar services under casual booking, which will be informed to the contractor at an appropriate time. According to the respondent writ petitioner, the said clause was not found place in the original Tender Notice and also in the fax of acceptance dated 27.01.2006. Therefore, the respondent writ petitioner sent a letter dated 23.01.2006 informing the appellant Corporation that the said new clause is against the original tender conditions, and therefore, the respondent writ petitioner is continuing performance of her contractual obligations by ignoring the said new clause, as it is an afterthought on the part of the appellant Corporation. It is stated that, thereafter, the respondent writ petitioner did not receive any reply from the appellant Corporation, and therefore, she continued to perform her contractual obligations hoping that the appellant Corporation accepted the original offer price and the impugned condition in Clause 12.3 of the contract would not bind her. It is stated that the respondent writ petitioner sent the monthly bills to the appellant-Corporation every month for payment, but each time the appellant- Corporation had paid only a part of the sum claimed and had failed to pay the remaining sum month after month. Even then, the respondent writ petitioner continued her services hoping that the appellant - Corporation would pay all dues in course of the contractual period. It is stated that even though the original tender period was for twenty four months, yet it was later on extended for a further period of ten months i.e., up to 30.11.2008. The respondent writ petitioner continued her services till the completion of the entire contractual period viz., 30.11.2008. But, she was not paid with the dues even after repeated demands. After the contract period was over, the respondent - writ petitioner sent a letter dated 15.03.2011 requesting payment as per the original schedule rates and not as per the varied rate. But, the said request of the respondent writ petitioner was rejected by the appellant Corporation vide their letter dated 03.06.2011. Hence, the respondent writ petitioner moved two writ petitions (in respect of two contracts) before the learned single Judge.