JARKAR GAMLIN Vs. TUMMAR BAGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material facts, giving rise to this appeal, are not in dispute and may be, therefore, set out, in brief, as under:

(2.) WE have heard Mr. B. C. Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, i. e. , the awardee of the contract. None has appeared on behalf of the private respondents. We have, however, heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

(3.) IT is submitted, on behalf of the appellant, that contrary to the finding, reached by the learned Single Judge, the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record clearly bring out the fact that the enhancement of rate, in question, had not been made during subsistence of the contract, which had been, pursuant to the NIT, dated 20. 05. 2004, entered into by the Government with the appellant. It is submitted by Mr. BC Das, learned Senior counsel, that due to changed situation and, upon refusal of the appellant to undertake execution of the awarded contract, no deed of agreement was executed by the parties concerned and no work order could be issued to the appellant. Hence, pursuant to the said NIT, no concluded contract, according to Mr. Das, was reached between the parties concerned. It is also submitted by Mr. Das that the NIT, dated 20. 05. 2004, did not materialise into any concluded contract for the period 2004-2005, inasmuch as, points out Mr. Das, the decision for the rate of enhancement was taken as late as on 08. 02. 2005 and the appellant entered into an agreement with the Government, on 09. 03. 2005, in respect of financial year 2005-2006, whereas the NIT was for the financial year 2004-2005 and it was only on 10. 03. 2005 that a work order was issued, at the approved enhanced rate, in favour of the appellant for execution of the carriage contract for the period 2005-2006 (and not 2004-2005 ). Hence, according to Mr. Das, the enhanced rate was in respect of a new contract, which was for the period of 2005-2006, whereas the NIT was, reiterates Mr. Das, for the financial year 2004-2005. Thus, the finding of the learned Single Judge, contends Mr. Das, that the enhancement of rate was during the subsistence of the contract, which the parties had entered into in pursuance of the said NIT, is, in the face of the materials on record, a wholly erroneous finding.