SPEED LOGISTICS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition against the orders dt. 21-11-2012, 1-12-2012, 4-12-2012 and 7-12-2012, by which the contracts of the petitioner in regard to transportation and handling of foodgrains have been cancelled.

(2.) THE respondent Corporation invited tenders for appointment of regular handling and transport contractors for foodgrains at Railhead and other storage centres. 16 tenders of the petitioner were accepted by respondent No. 3, out of which three tenders were for RTC and 13 for handling transport contract. The petitioner firm timely deposited the Bank Guarantees of six tenders of six locations i.e. (1) Mandideep, (2) Gosalpur (3) Vidisha (4) Salamtpur (5) Ganjbasoda and (6) Sagar, but the petitioner firm failed to deposit Bank Guarantees for remaining ten locations within time mentioned in the tender document within stipulated time limit. The respondent Corporation issued letters to the petitioner in regard to deposit of requisite security amount and Bank Guarantees on 26-5-2012, 13-6-2012, 21-6-2012,' 22-6-2012, 23-6-2012, 19-7- 2012, 20-7-2012, 30-7-2012, 6-8-2012, 21-8-2012, 22-8-2012 and 4-9-2012, cumulatively marked as Annexure R/2. When the petitioner did not deposit the same, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14-9-2012. It is mentioned in the show cause notice that in accordance with Clause IX (b), the petitioner did not deposit the Security Deposit amount within stipulated time and it is further mentioned that the petitioner also did not deposit Bank Guarantees on due dates, hence, the petitioner was directed to show cause why the contracts be not cancelled. The petitioner filed reply dt. 21st November, 2012 (Annexure P/7) to the show cause notice and admitted the fact that there was delay in depositing Bank Guarantees in regard to 10 locations beyond stipulated time. It is mentioned in the reply to the show cause notice that a dispute was pending before the State Bank of India in regard to applicability of stamp duty on enhancement of loan amount and the matter was referred to Registrar of Bhopal and after enhancement of bank loan, the Bank guarantees shall be furnished. The petitioner further mentioned that it was willing to start work on mutually agreed terms on locations. The petitioner prayed that it be granted time for depositing Bank guarantees. However, the Dy. General Manager vide impugned orders dt. 21-11-2012, 1-12-2012, 4-12-2012 and 7-12-2012, cumulatively marked as Annexure 2/9 along with petition, terminated the contracts in exercise of powers conferred on him under the contract documents.

(3.) CONTRARY to this, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has failed to perform its part of contract. It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to submit Bank Guarantees within stipulated time in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract. The petitioner did not submit the same, even though the petitioner did not apply to the higher authority for extension of time, hence, the contract has been terminated because the petitioner violated the mandatory terms and conditions. The learned counsel further submitted that the petition is not maintainable in contractual matter. The petitioner has alternative remedy and even it can claim damages. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Puravankard Projects Ltd. vs. Hotel Venus International and others, reported in 2007(10) SCC 33.