KJSL-UTKAL (JV), A JOINT VENTURE OF M/S.KARAMJEET SINGH & CO.LTD.,M/S.UTKAL HIGHWAYS Vs. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of termination of contract by order dated 18.7.2007 vide Annexure -13 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Even though the said order of cancellation was passed, the authorities have made it clear that the said termination will take effect on and from 18.10.2007 and in the meantime the petitioner has been allowed to continue the work.

(2.) THE material facts of the case are that opposite party No. 1, viz., Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, issued a notice inviting tender on 18.11.2005. In response to the same, the petitioner dropped its bid on 23.12.2005, which was within the scheduled time as extended by opposite party No. 1. After accepting the petitioners bid opposite party No. 1 issued a work order on 5.3.2006 in petitioners favour asking it to complete the work within a period of three years with effect from 3.3.2006. When the petitioner was carrying on its work opposite party No. 1 certificated that the petitioner had completed substantial portion of the work during the period from 3.3.2006 to 28.5.2006.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties while accepting the aforesaid facts stated that the petitioner had submitted two sale deeds to satisfy the eligibility criteria about the ownership of surface miners in the tender condition. It was submitted that the petitioner, as a bidder under the tender condition, was to submit an affidavit in the prescribed pro forma on a non -judicial stamp paper duly sworn in before the Magistrate/Notary Public to the effect that the documents submitted by it with the tender are genuine and correct and if in any part of the declaration given by the petitioner is found not genuine and incorrect then the tender will be rejected, the contract will be terminated, the earnest money will be forfeited and the petitioner will be debarred from participating in the subsequent tender of the company. It was stated by the learned counsel that the in the petitioners reply which was given in answer to the show cause of the Chief Vigilance Officer dated 11.8.2006 it was admitted that the entire sale consideration amount in respect of the surface miners was to be paid by the petitioner and the payment was made by post -dated cheques as per mutual agreement. According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties this shows that the petitioner did not pay the entire consideration money in respect of the surface miners at the time the petitioner submitted its tender. Therefore, its claim regarding ownership is not correct. The petitioner was also asked to furnish the sale deeds containing the correct information regarding full and final payment of the consideration value. According to the learned counsel, the sale deeds contain incorrect information regarding payment of full and final consideration value by the purchaser which is in deviation with the undertaking given by the petitioner along with the tender document in accordance with the Clause 10 of the Notice Inviting Tender. As such, the competent authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner has violated the provision of Clause 10 of the Notice Inviting Tender and therefore, the order was passed for terminating the contract.