TECOM INDUSTRIES Vs. KHOPOLI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER no.1 is a partnership firm. Respondent no.1 is the Khopoli Municipal Council. In substance, the petitioners are claiming the price of the material supplied by them to the Khopoli Municipal Council under a contract awarded to the petitioners in pursuance to a tender notice. In October 1982, Khopoli Municipal Council, by an advertisement, invited tenders for supply of cast iron pipes for their water works as per specifications and on conditions specified therein. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioners submitted a tender on terms and conditions mentioned in the tender. Several other offers were also received by respondent no.1Municipal Council. The quotation of the petitioners being the lowest, the same was accepted and a formal agreement was signed and executed between the petitioners and respondent no.1-Khopoli Municipal Council on 29th April 1983. Thereafter, formal orders for supply of the cast iron pipes was communicated by respondent no.1 to the petitioners. The petitioners commenced supplying the material as per the tender. From time to time, the petitioners used to submit their bills to the respondent-Municipal Council as per the material supplied and the respondent-Municipal Council went on making payments. It is stated that, accordingly, the Khopoli Municipal Council has made payments to the tune of Rs.13,03,005.80. However, two bills, one dated 13.12.1983 for Rs.78,910.00 and the other dated 21.3.1984 for Rs.38,025.00 are still outstanding. The petitioners have also deposited as and by way of security deposit a sum of Rs.40,342.00 with the Khopoli Municipal Council which is not yet refunded. The total amount as such comes to Rs.1,57,277.00.

(2.) IT is asserted by the petitioners that the entire quantity of material as per the tender and as per the agreement has been supplied and the Municipal Council has not disputed, at any time, regarding either the quality or the quantity of the material supplied by the petitioners. As the two bills, as stated earlier, were not paid, the petitioners sent several reminders and requested for payment. Sometime in October 1984, by letter dated 21.10.1984, addressed to the petitioners by the Khopoli Municipal Council, the petitioners were informed that the District Collector, Raigad, has raised certain objections in respect of awarding the tender to the petitioners and because of the said objections, the amount is not being released. By letter dated 15.6.1985 sent through the attorneys, the petitioners called upon the Khopoli Municipal Council to make payment of Rs.1,57,277.00. Thereafter, there was no response in the matter. Ultimately, the petitioners learnt that by order dated 19.8.1985, the District Collector had suspended resolution dated 29.4.1983 passed by the Khopoli Municipal Council whereunder the Council had taken a decision to award the contract to the petitioners. The petitioners further learnt that the Addl. Commissioner, Konkan Division, by order dated 10.10.1986 confirmed the order passed by the Collector under the provisions of section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Consequently, the resolution passed by the Khopoli Municipal Council on 29.4.1983 awarding contract to the petitioners has been suspended. The order of the Addl. Commissioner recites that resolution no.21 dated 29.4.1983 accepted the tender of the petitioners being the lowest tender. However, the same is very high when compared to district scheduled rates and, therefore, the District Collector had suspended the execution of the said resolution. According to the Collector and the Commissioner, the prices quoted by the petitioners were very much higher and, therefore, it was in public interest to suspend the resolution awarding contract to the petitioners. The order observed that the Chief Officer and other officers of the Municipal Council were not diligent enough and had not taken due and adequate care before awarding the contract to the petitioners. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court by way of this petition, firstly, challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner and, secondly, for a writ of mandamus claiming the amount with interest from respondent no.1 - Khopoli Municipal Council.

(3.) WE have heard Mr.Kadam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of the petition; Mr.Sawant, learned counsel appearing for the Khopoli Municipal Council; and Mr.Bagala, learned Asstt. Government Pleader for respondents no.3 to 5.