Kerala High Court
M/S.Stup Constructions Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 1 November, 2012
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur, K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/30TH PHALGUNA 1934
WA.No. 2038 of 2012 () IN WP(C).21036/2012
--------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).21036/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
01-11-2012
-------------
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
---------------------
M/S.STUP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.
1004 & 5, RAHEJA CHAMBERS, 213
NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021
REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL), ARNAB PAHARI.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.PUNEET BALI (SR)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
-------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
PORTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. KANNUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.
"PARVATHY", TC 36/1, CHACHA
NH BYE PASS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 024.
VK
WA.No. 2038 of 2012 () IN WP(C).21036/2012
--------------------------------------------
ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IMPLEADED
---------------------------------
ADDL.R3. MIR. PROJECTES AND CONSULTANTS (P) LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, M.M. BUILDING, NEAR TOWN HALL,
KALA BHAVAN ROAD, KOCHI 682018
ADDL.R4. AECOM ASIA COMPANY LTD., 9/F, INFINITY TOWER C.,
DLF CYBER CITY, DLF PHASE-II, GURGAON 122002,
HARYANA, ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL
RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 AS PER ORDER DATED 23.11.12 IN
WA.2038/12.
R1 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL
R2 BY ADVs.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.P.GOPINATH
SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
ADDL R3 BY ADVs.SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN (MANGALATH)
SRI.RAJESH NAIR
SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN
ADDL R4 BY ADVs.SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)
SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN
SRI.BINU MATHEW
SRI.TERRY V.JAMES
SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2013,
ALONG WITH W.A. NO.30 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
VK
WA.No. 2038 of 2012 () IN WP(C).21036/2012
--------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
--------
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE
---------------------
ANNEXURE A1. COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5531 OF
2013 OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ON 15.03.2013
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE : NIL
---------------------
/ TRUE COPY /
P.A. TO JUDGE
VK
MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------- W.A. Nos.2038 of 2012 & 30 of 2013
---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2013 Judgment Manjula Chellur, C.J.
The appellant herein, in response to the request for proposal from interested parties who wanted to bid to be appointed as Project Consultant for the Kannur International Airport Project (for short 'KIAP'), submitted a proposal dated 11.7.2012 along with the undertaking that the appellant is not disqualified to bid for the KIAP. Subsequently, 2nd respondent received an information that the appellant was removed from the panel of Consultants of Punjab Infrastructure Development Board. An issue arose whether the said removal resulted in blacklisting the appellant or not. However, the 2nd respondent proceeded to terminate the agreement entered into between the parties in respect of consultancy work of the appellant so far as KIAP. Aggrieved by the same, a writ petition came to be filed by the appellant as W.P.(C) No.21036 of 2012. Meanwhile, a third party also filed a writ petition, W.P.(C) No.19826 of 2012 questioning the awarding of tender in favour of the appellant. Both the writ W.A.Nos.2038/12 & 30/13 2 petitions were taken up together and a common judgment came to be passed on 1.11.2012 dismissing W.P.(C) No.21036 of 2012 filed by the present appellant and disposing of W.P.(C) No.19826 of 2012. However, the termination of the contract by the 2nd respondent was upheld. Therefore, the appellant, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, filed these two appeals.
2. During the course of arguments, the parties were wise enough to arrive at a settlement between them in order to save time and unnecessary expenditure in fighting the litigation. Through their cordial talks across the table, they were able to strike a settlement and the terms are incorporated in a joint statement filed by the appellant and the 2nd respondent. The parties had entered into the following terms and conditions upon which W.A.No.2038 of 2012 could be disposed of. Those terms and conditions are as under:
"a) The order dated 5.9.2012 cancelling the project consultancy agreement dated 17.8.2012 is accepted by the appellant. The appellant undertakes not to apply to the 2nd respondent in relation to any of the W.A.Nos.2038/12 & 30/13 3 projects of the Kannur International Airport from now onwards. However, the order dated 5.9.2012 and this settlement shall not in any manner be treated as an impediment or bar against the appellant in any tendering or contractual matter and shall simply be deemed to be a discharge of the appellant i.e., M/s.STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd. from the project consultancy agreement dated 17.8.2012 in respect of the consultancy assignment pertaining to M/s.Kannur International Airport Ltd.(the 2nd respondent).
b) Nothing mentioned in any of the pleadings, replies, replies to notices etc or anything stated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.11.2012 shall be used against either of the parties.
c) Neither of the parties shall make or pursue any action, claims or allegations against the other party.
d) The appellant accepts the appointment of the additional 4th respondent (M/s.Aecom Asia Company Ltd.) as the consultant by the 2nd respondent after cancellation of the agreement with the appellant. W.A.Nos.2038/12 & 30/13 4
e) The appellant voluntarily foregoes the bid security amount along with an amount of Rs.4.17 lakhs in favour of the 2nd respondent (M/s.Kannur International Airport Ltd.) for enabling the 2nd respondent to recoup its miscellaneous expenses etc., in the interest of maintaining cordial and good relations with KIAL and the State of Kerala. The appellant will tender Rs.4.17 lakhs to the 2nd respondent within 60 days from the date of obtaining the certified copy of the order disposing the above appeal.
f) Any undertaking given or any amount paid by the appellant shall not be construed as a penalty or having any civil or penal consequences against the appellant."
3. With the above settlement, so far as the controversial issues between the appellant and the 2nd respondent, the appellant's liabilities are honourably discharged by the 2nd respondent. In the light of amicable settlement on all controversial issues between the parties, we dispose of W.A.Nos.2038/12 & 30/13 5 W.A.No.2038 of 2012 in terms of above settlement arrived at between the parties, setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.21036 of 2012 dated 1.11.2012.
4. So far as W.A.No.30 of 2013, the appellant's counsel submits, appellant will not have any claim whatsoever against the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19826 of 2012 with respect to the subject matter in issue. In the light of disposal of W.A.No.2038 of 2012, nothing survives for consideration in W.A.No.30 of 2013. Accordingly, W.A.No.30 of 2013 is closed.
5. We place on record our appreciation for learned Senior Counsel Mr.Puneet Bali, appearing for the appellant and Adv. Mr.P.Gopinath, representing Menon & Pai for the 2nd respondent, for their endeavour to see that the differences are amicably settled between the parties.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
srd W.A.Nos.2038/12 & 30/13 6