Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 13 December, 2024
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010254982024
2024:GAU-AS:12658
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2636/2023
M/S SAI CONSTRUCTION AND ANR
REP BY THE ITS PROPRIETOR HOUSE NO. 23 1ST FLOOR MG NATH
CHRISTIANBASTI GUWAHATI PIN 781005
2: JOYEETA CHOWDHURY
D/O DILIP KUMAR CHOWDHURY PROPRIETOR OF M/S SAI CONSTRUCTION
HOUSE NO. 23 1ST FLOOR MG NATH CHRISTIANBASTI GUWAHATI PIN
781005
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO T HE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110011
2:THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF
MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES KASHMIR HOUSE RAJAJI MARG NEW
DELHI PIN 110011
3:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (NEI)
NARANGI MILITARY STATION P.O. SATGAON GUWHATI PIN 781027
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (AF)
HEAD QUARTER CHIEF ENGINEER SHILLONG ZONE MILITARY ENGINEER
SERVICES ELEPHANT FALLS NONGLYER SHILLONG 793009
Page No.# 2/5
5:THE GARRISON ENGINEER (I) (P) (AF)
TEZPUR MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES AIR FORCE STATION SONITPUR
PIN 784104
------------
Advocate for : MR. A AHMED
Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 13-12-2024 Heard Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. SK Medhi, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents.
2. Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 firm had entered into a contract agreement with the respondent authorities, in pursuance of its emergence as the successful bidder in a tender process initiated by a Notice Inviting Tender. The contract work pertains to Central Conditioning works to certain Buildings under GE (I) (P) (AF), Tezpur. It is the submission of Mr. Ahmed that though the petitioner in all earnestness proceeded to execute the contract work, there was a delay in the execution of the contract work due to reasons attributable to the employer, including delayed approval to the revised drawings, etc. The petitioner by letter dated 03.05.2023, has been asked to appear in a meeting on 18.05.2023, to discuss about the proposed cancellation of the contract work. It is the submission of the learned Page No.# 3/5 counsel for the petitioner that a decision has already been taken for cancellation of the contract, without serving any show cause notice prior to such decision.
3. Mr. SK Medhi, learned CGC submits that the respondents has not attended any meeting with the respondents, after the letter dated 03.05.2023. He further submits that the respondents cannot be debarred from taking a decision with regard to the contract work being undertaken by the petitioners. He submits that a decision can be made by the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue with the contract work or to terminate the petitioners. In the event the petitioners' contract work is terminated; they always have a remedy by invoking the arbitration clause, provided in the contract agreement.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. The petitioners are aggrieved by the letter dated 03.05.2023 issued by the respondents, asking the petitioners to come for a meeting to be held on 18.05.2023, to discuss the proposed cancellation of the contract. The said letter states as follows:-
"1. Reference(s):-
(a) This office letter No. 88605/F/TEZ/217/E8 dated 13 Mar 2023.
(b) Your letter No. Nil dated 21 Mar 2023.
2. A meeting/presentation with HQ ADG (NEI) Guwahati is scheduled on 18 May 2023 at 1000 hrs in their office to be attended Page No.# 4/5 by MES officials to discuss the proposed cancellation of subject contract. Please attend the meeting on scheduled date and time to put forth your views.
3. Please acknowledge and convey your confirmation on attending the meet."
6. Though the letter appears to convey the idea that the petitioners' contract would be cancelled on the meeting to be held on 18.05.2023, the same is only speculative in nature. It is only a proposal which need not be followed though by the respondents. In any event, the respondents cannot be prohibited from taking a decision, as to whether the contract being undertaken by the petitioners should be terminated or not.
7. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, who have apparently not had a meeting with the State respondents in terms of the letter dated 03.05.2023, till today, should discuss the proposal made by the said respondents. For the said purpose, this Court is of the view that a meeting between the State respondents and the petitioners should be held on 06.01.2025, to discuss the contract work being undertaken by the petitioners. It is also made clear that no bar is being put on the State respondents to take a decision on the contract work being undertaken by the petitioners, after the meeting to be held on 06.01.2025. However, in the event of any decision being taken by the State respondents to terminate the petitioners' contract work, prior notice in writing should be issued to the petitioners, after the meeting is held on 06.01.2025. The petitioners should accordingly attend the office of the respondent No. 4 at 10:30 am on 06.01.2025.
Page No.# 5/5
8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
9. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant