ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUNICIPAL Committee, Katra/respondent No. 3 issued auction noticed No. MC/K/2009 -10/1226 -37 dated 20.03.2010 inviting offers for the 'Mules & Mazdoor Contract of Municipal Committee, Katra' for the year 2010 -11 (01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011). The Auction Notice was accompanied with its term and conditions clause -8 whereof is relevant. It reads:

(2.) PETITIONER 's contention is that he approached respondent No. 1, expressed his readiness to deposit the 40% of the auction amount and made a representation that clause No. 8 of the auction notice was harsh and arbitrary and may be relaxed. Petitioner then filed a suit in the court of learned District Judge, Reasi. This suit seems to have been filed on 03.04.2010 as indicated in the order dated 29.04.2010 passed by the learned District Judge in the application for temporary injunction filed in that suit. In that suit, petitioner inter alia sought declaring of the condition of providing the bank guarantee as arbitrary and illegal and injunction restraining respondents from re -auctioning or re -tendering the contract. Learned District Judge by his order dated 29.04.2010 (supra) passed in the application for temporary injunction, firstly, directed, respondents to issue the order for allotment of contract to the petitioner/plaintiff and secondly, directed that in case letter of allotment is not issued for non furnishing of bank guarantee, the respondents will pay the amount of CDR to the petitioner within two days and also furnish an undertaking that 'they will compensate the plaintiff for breach of contract and will bind themselves for compensating the losses accruing to the plaintiff as a result of breach of contract if found to have concluded by re -tendering contract, in case the defendants choose to do so, as per the final determination of this suit'.

(3.) AS the respondents started taking steps for allotment of fresh contract for the next financial year, that is, 2011 -12, petitioner filed CMA No. 271/2011 in CIMA No. 312/2010, which was pending in this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide order passed on 31.03.2011 directed the parties to maintain status quo as on that day till 07.04.2011. Petitioner, thus, continued with executing the contract. However, on the case coming up before this Court on 07.04.2011, the respondents withdrew the appeal and in the result the interim direction issued on 31.03.2011 came to end and petitioner could execute the contract only up to 07.04.2011. The petitioner, thus, executed the contract and collected the revenue for the period commencing from 10.5.2010 to 7.4.2011.