Uttarakhand High Court
Stup Consultants Private Ltd vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 6 March, 2014
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 388 (MS) of 2012
STUP Consultants Private Ltd. ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ........Respondents
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
Mr. Mahmood Pracha, Advocate with Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate, present for the petitioner.
2. Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel, present for the State/respondent no. 1.
3. Ms. Lata Negi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. A.V. Pundir, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 2 & 3.
4. Even though the counter affidavit on behalf of all the respondents is on record but the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 and learned Standing Counsel Mr. R.C. Arya, appearing for the State, failed to give any assistance to this Court. This is very sorry state of affairs.
5. What is under challenge in this writ petition is an order whereby the respondents have invoked the bank guarantee.
6. The case of the petitioner is that they were successful bidders for providing a consultancy services and, thereafter, they were given a letter of acceptance by the State authorities on 29th January, 2010. According to the condition of Request For Proposal immediately the petitioner gave a bank guarantee of `17,57,500/-(Rupees Seventeen Lac Fifty Seven Thousand and Five hundred only). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the Request For Proposal execution of agreement was to be signed but the respondent no. 2, instead of signing the contract started making correspondence with the petitioner for reduction of the 2 cost, whereas the petitioner was always ready and willing to do the work but the respondent kept on writing to them to reduce the cost. This petitioner alleges is unfair on the part of the State Government as all this is happening after the letter of acceptance and it is for this reason that formal contract could not have been signed.
7. Ms Lata Negi appears for Uttarakhand State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. She is not prepared in the matter.
8. Considering that there is no proper representation on behalf of either the State or the Uttarakhand State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., this Court directs the Managing Director, Uttarakhand State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. as well as the Principal Secretary, Transport and Civil Aviation, Government of Uttarakhand to be present in this Court on the next date of listing which is fixed for 14th March, 2014 in daily cause list.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 06.03.2014 ML