A K TRAVELS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking quashing of order contained in letter dated 27.05.2013 with a further prayer for quashing tender notice dated 22.06.2013 for supply of commercial cars, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in so far as, the prayer seeking quashing of tender notice dated 22.06.2013 is concerned, it does not survive because the tender has been finalised and supplies have already been made however, in so far as, the order of black listing is concerned, the issue is still alive. It is stated that pursuant to advertisement dated 29.07.2009, the petitioner's offer was found lowest and accordingly, accepted vide letter dated 31.08.2012. The respondents used to issue work order from time to time for supply of vehicles and the petitioner had been successfully supplying vehicles to the department and there was no complaint against the petitioner in the past. It appears that vide letter dated 28.12.2012, the petitioner was directed by the respondentAdditional Project Director, Jharkhand State Aids Control Society to showcause why appropriate action be not taken against it for not providing vehicle. On 07.01.2013 the proprietor of the petitionercompany submitted its reply specifically denying that no work order was issued to him for supply of vehicle. Moreover, on 11.12.2012, his father died and as such he informed the department that he would not be able to provide vehicle for the period between 11.12.2012 and 23.12.2012 however, vide letter dated 27.05.2013, the petitioner was informed that his agreement was cancelled and the firm has been black listed.

(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed raising a preliminary objection that the case involves factual dispute which cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition and appropriate remedy is before the competent civil court. It is stated that several complaints were received against the petitioner's firm which caused difficulty in completion of work in time and several warnings were issued to the petitioner however, the petitioner did not improve its service. Accordingly, a showcause notice for cancellation of the agreement was issued to the petitioner for breach of terms and conditions of the agreement. The agreement provides an arbitration clause and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy.