RAJLAXMI CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-firm has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the show cause notice, (Ann. P-18), dated 21.1.2013, issued under Clause 33 of the alleged agreement dated 23.4.2008, (Ann. P-4) directing the petitioner to submit its explanation with a direction to submit an explanation within fifteen days with respect of the subject matter enumerated in the notice regarding breach of contract condition by the petitioner. In addition to it, the notice dated 8.11.2011, (Ann. P-19) issued by the respondent-authority whereby after considering the reply of the petitioner (Ann. P-19) of aforesaid show cause notice (Ann. P-18), it was intimated by the respondent - authority for taking the action and steps under Clause 33 of the aforesaid agreement has also been challenged.

(2.) Having heard the petitioner's counsel at length, keeping in view his arguments, We have carefully gone through the papers annexed with the petition including aforesaid show cause notice, (Ann. P-18) and its reply, (Ann. P-19) as well as said intimation, Ann. P-20 along with the case law of the Full Bench of this Court cited by the petitioner's counsel in the matter of B.B. Verma and another Vs. State of M.P. and another, 2007 4 MPLJ 610.

(3.) It is apparent fact that the petition has not filed this writ petition against any recovery order or the order whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay the sum with respect of losses or the damages suffered by the respondent-State on account of violation of terms and conditions of the agreement. In fact some show cause notice was issued by the respondent-authority regarding violation of some terms and conditions of the contract by the petitioner, in response to which objection was filed by the petitioner and considering the same, the intimation with respect of final action under Clause 33 of the Agreement, (Ann. P-4) was given to the petitioner. In such premises, the alleged notices have not been issued for any recovery of the sum and at present no such proceeding is pending against the petitioner.