Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Malik Traders vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 October, 2010
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal
Civil Writ Petition No.18948 of 2010 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.18948 of 2010
Date of decision: 15.10.2010
M/s Malik Traders ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Hitesh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J (Oral)
This petition seeks quashing of order dated 3.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) whereby contract of the petitioner was terminated.
Case of the petitioner is that it was allotted work of collection of toll on Kaithal-Patiala Road near Punjab Border on 8.4.2010. An agreement dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure P-1) was executed between the parties. The contract was operative till 30.6.2011 but before expiry of the period of contract, the contract has been terminated on the allegation that on surprise checking jointly by Deputy General Manager (Toll), HSRDC, Panchkula and Sub Divisional Engineer, Provincial Sub Division, Kaithal, it was found that petitioner was not adhering to the prescribed rate and was charging toll at higher rate. Apart from terminating the contract, penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed and performance security amounting to Rs.31,63,838/- was forfeited. The petitioner was also debarred from participating in future tenders of Haryana State Roads Civil Writ Petition No.18948 of 2010 -2- **** and Bridges Development Corporation Limited, Panchkula.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Harbans Lal Sahnia and another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 107, Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central-I and another (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 151, Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguli and another (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 156 and M/s S.B.P. and Co. Vs. M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. and another 2005 (8) S.C.C. 618 to submit that the order of termination of contract having been passed without giving any hearing is violative of principle of natural justice.
It is not disputed that under the agreement alternative remedy of Arbitration is available in the matter. This being the position, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition on the issue of wrongful termination of contract and consequential actions. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not apply to the termination of commercial contract and in any case this aspect can be gone into in the arbitration proceedings.
As regards debarring of the petitioner from participating in future tender, the petitioner has put forward its view point by way of representation dated 6.9.2010. In reply thereto, it was stated that action taken was as per terms of contract. The issue regarding debarring in future tenders is not a subject matter of contract alone. This issue could not have been closed merely by referring to the Civil Writ Petition No.18948 of 2010 -3- **** terms of the agreement. Viewpoint of the petitioner had to be considered.
In view of the above, while relegating the petitioner to the remedy of arbitration on the issue of termination of contract and other consequential issues, the issue of debarring the petitioner from participating in future tender may be examined again particularly as to fixing time for which debarring will remain operative. If the petitioner raises such issue within one month from today by way of a representation, respondent no.2 may take a fresh decision thereon within one month thereafter.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
October 15,2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal)
Pka Judge