Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Rainbow Friends Video Vision ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 November, 2020
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
1 WP No.20719/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
(S.B.: HON. SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)
WRIT PETITION No.20719/2019
M/s.Rainbow Friends Video Vision
Vs.
State of M.P.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Shreyraj Saxena, learned counsel for respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting :
ORDER
(Passed on 02nd November 2020) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 15/5/2019 and 19/7/2019 whereby the rates of the work allotted to the petitioner were changed and the objection/representation of the petitioner was rejected. [2] The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the NIT issued by the respondent for the work of photography and videography in the various constituencies of Ujjain District during the State Assembly Election of 2018, the petitioner's bid was accepted and the work order was issued by executing the agreement dated 31/10/2018 @ Rs.1935/- per day for the videography and Rs.941/- per day for the photography. The petitioner had successfully completed the said work as the State Assembly Elections were held on 12/12/2018. The petitioner was issued the fresh order on 10/3/2019 to carry out the work of videography and photography in the same four constituencies for the Lok Sabha Election of 2019 without 2 WP No.20719/2019 issuing any NIT to do the work on the same rate in which the petitioner had done the work for State Legislative Assembly Election. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had started the work of Lok Sabha Election and subsequently the NIT for the videography and photography of Lok Sabha work for the District Ujjain was issued on 20/3/2019. The petitioner had unsuccessfully challenged the NIT before this Court, but thereafter no fresh work order was issued to any of the parties nor the work of the petitioner was cancelled. On the contrary, on 14/5/2019 additional requirement of cameras for covering 12 polling booth was made which was duly complied with by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner started when on 15/5/2019 the respondent had issued the impugned order Annexure P/1 stating that the petitioner will be paid @ Rs.774/- per day for the work of videography done during the Lok Sabha Election 2019. According to the petitioner this order was communicated to the petitioner on 20 th May, 2019. The petitioner had filed objection against this order which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 21/5/2019. [3] The respondents have filed their reply taking the stand that the work allotted to the petitioner earlier was at a higher rate whereas in the NIT which was issued subsequently the bids for the lower rate were received, therefore, on the basis of the lowest bid received, the impugned order was passed fixing the rate of Rs.774/- per day.
[4] The submission of the counsel for petitioner is that the respondent cannot modify the rates after the order is issued and that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before modifying the rates and in any case the modified rates cannot be made applicable with retrospective 3 WP No.20719/2019 effect.
[5] As against this, submission of the learned counsel for respondent is that since the work was earlier allotted at a higher rate and, therefore, now the rates have been modified. [6] Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that though for the work of videography and photography of the State Legislative Assembly Election the petitioner was awarded after inviting the NIT, but so far as the work order dated 10/3/2019 Annexure P/6 for the videography and photography of Lok Sabha Elections @ Rs.1935/- and Rs.941/- per day is concerned, the same was not issued after inviting any NIT. The reply of the respondent reveals that without inviting the NIT, work order photography and videography of Lok Sabha Election was issued to the petitioner because model code of conduct was made applicable without any prior notice on 10/3/2019. As the legality and propriety of the said work order is not an issue before this court, therefore, this Court has refrained itself from going into it. Undisputedly the petitioner did the work of videography and photography on the strength of this order till it was modified on 15/5/2019 by reducing the rate to Rs.774/- per day for videography. The record further reflects that though the respondent had issued the NIT subsequently for the given constituencies of Lok Sabha Election but undisputedly no work order on that basis for the concerned constituency has been issued. Once the petitioner had done the work of photography and videogrpahy on the basis of the work order dated 10/3/2019 till 15/5/2019 without any objections and in fact during this period the additional work was also allotted to the petitioner on the same terms, therefore, on the basis of the 4 WP No.20719/2019 subsequent order dated 15/5/2019 respondent cannot reduce the rate for the work already done by the petitioner for the back period. Hence, the order dated 15/5/2019 will have no retrospective applicability as the same is also barred by the principle of estoppel, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the payments from 10/3/2019 till 14/5/2019 on the basis of the rate agreed in the work order dated 10/3/2019. It was a contractual matter where the work order was given without issuing any NIT, therefore, the modified rates will apply to the work which was done by the petitioner with effect from 15/5/2019. The stand of the petitioner that the modified order dated 15/5/2019 was conveyed on 20/5/2019 has been disputed, therefore, this disputed question of fact cannot be decided by this court for which the petitioner will have to approach the appropriate forum where he can establish it by adducing the evidence. [7] Hence, the present writ petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge vm Varghese Mathew 2020.11.02 18:35:32 +05'30'