LAWS(P&H)-2017-2-248

SOM NATH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Decided On February 27, 2017
SOM NATH Appellant
V/S
State Of Haryana And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 19.09.2013 (Annexure P-11) blacklisting/debarring him from tendering for works to be carried out by respondent No. 2-Haryana Tourism Corporation Limited. The petitioner has also sought the recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,76,674/- due to him in respect of other contracts carried out by him on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The respondents had by a notice dated 27.09.2002 invited tenders for the supply of a 125 KVA Diesel Generator Set (DG Set) for its Tourist Complex at Karnal(Haryana). The petitioner being the lowest bidder, a work order was issued by respondent No. 2 in his favour dated 12.11.2002. The work was completed by about 09.05.2003. The respondents after about a year raised certain disputes regarding the quality of the equipment. According to the respondents, the petitioner supplied an old DG Set after merely painting it. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the equipment was in order and was of the requisite quality and specifications. The petitioner contends that the reason that the equipment did not function as desired by respondent No. 2 is that the capacity was lower than the second respondent's requirement. In this regard, the petitioner relies upon certain correspondence/notes addressed by the respondents' officers. It is not necessary for us to consider the rival contentions in this writ petition. They are not necessary for deciding either of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner.

(3.) As far as the relief regarding refund of the amount is concerned, the same cannot be granted in this writ petition for more than one reason. Firstly, whether the equipment was as required under the terms and conditions of the work order or not, is a disputed question of fact. Secondly, the amounts have been retained by the respondents from the petitioner's dues in respect of other contracts, the details whereof are not sufficient to decide the issue in the petitioner's favour.