Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Sudarshan Singh vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Through ... on 19 February, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4680 of 2022
---------
M/s. Sudarshan Singh, the Contractor for running a permanent canteen for Bokaro Steel Plant Coke Oven BPP-02, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro through Pratibha Singh, W/o Late Navin Kumar Singh, R/o Sector- 3, Qr. No. 754, Behind Kalyan Vidyalaya, P.O. Sector- 3, P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro ... ... Petitioner Versus
1. Steel Authority of India Ltd. through its Chairman, having its office at Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi, PIN- 110033.
2. Bokaro Steel Plant, through its Director Incharge, Bokaro Steel Plant, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand, PIN- 827001.
3. Chief General Manager, Coke Oven & BPP, Bokaro Steel Plant, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand, PIN- 827001.
4. General Manager, Contract Cell- Works, Bokaro Steel Plant, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand, PIN- 827001.
5. Senior Manager, Personnel- Works, Bokaro Steel Plant, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand, PIN- 827001. ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
---------
08/19.02.2024 Heard Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondent to release the admitted dues to the petitioner for the period 01.02.2021 to 12.10.2021 on account of work being allotted initially to the proprietorship concern, which was subsequently converted into a partnership firm for running a permanent canteen for Bokaro Steel Plant Coke Oven BPP-02. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioners to complete the work order for the period 21.01.2020 to 20.01.2023. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the communication dated 30.07.2021, by which, it has -2- been informed that the Work Order dated 20.01.2020 awarded to late Sudarshan Singh ceases to exist after his death.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that initially the work order was allotted to the petitioner, which was a proprietorship concern, which was subsequently converted during the pendency of the work order to a partnership firm and unfortunately though the partnership firm was constituted on 15.05.2021 but one of the partners i.e. Sudarshan Singh had died on 19.05.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an information with respect to such change was given to the respondent-Bokaro Steel Limited. It has further been submitted that the dues accruing to the petitioner on account of the work which was being done by the petitioner has been withheld by the respondent-Bokaro Steel Limited. Learned counsel has also referred to an order passed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of "Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat versus Madhukant M. Mehta" reported in 1980 SCC OnLine Guj 172, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while submitting that mere change in the status of the firm could not have been the basis for the respondent-Bokaro Steel Limited to terminate the work order issued in favour of the petitioner.
4. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that though the proprietorship firm was converted into a partnership firm on 15.05.2021 but one of the partners namely, Sudarshan Singh had died on 19.05.2021 but the said information was submitted to the respondent-Bokaro Steel Limited after the death of Sudarshan Singh. It has further been submitted while referring to the "Job Work Order" that Clause 25 prevents the respondents to allow any of the petitioners to continue to complete the work which was allotted to the proprietorship firm. It has also been submitted while referring to the counter affidavit that there are no dues left to be paid to the petitioner though the same has been objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that the admitted dues payable to the petitioners be directed to be paid to them.
-3-5. Briefly stated the facts reveal that the Bokaro Steel Plant had floated a tender inviting participants for allotment of Coke Oven-BPP 02 Permanent Canteen of Bokaro Steel Plant at Bokaro Steel City in which M/s Sudarshan Singh a proprietorship concern had participated and being successful Job Work Order was issued to the said firm vide Work Order dated 20.01.2020 and the duration of the Work Order was 21.01.2020 to 20.01.2023. During the Covid-19 period the wife and the son of Sudarshan Singh had died and in fact Sudarshan Singh had also died on 19.05.2021. It has also been stated that Sudarshan Singh had constituted a partnership firm along with the other partners vide partnership deed dated 15.05.2021 and Smt. Pratibha Singh, who is the daughter-in-law of Sudarshan Singh has allotted 90% share of the partnership firm. However, after execution of the partnership deed on 15.05.2021 Sudharshan Singh had died on 19.05.2021. The respondent-Bokaro Steel Limited however did not allow the petitioner to continue the work for which representations were submitted before the authorities but the same did not evoke any response.
6. The Job Work Order dated 20.01.2020 which was issued pursuant to the proprietorship firm having been successful in its bid contains Clause 25 which according the respondent- Bokaro Steel Limited has prevented the respondents to continue with the petitioners and the same which reads as follows:
"25. The permission granted by the Licenser to the Licensee to run and maintain the canteen shall be personal. The Licensee, shall not allow or permit any other person/firm company as Agency or constituted Attorney to run or remain in-charge of the canteen without the written permission of Licenser, nor shall the Licensee assign or sublet the canteen of enter into partnership deal with any person/hire for running the canteen or in any way -4- shall transfer the rights conferred upon him by the Licenser."
7. Clause 25 of the Job Work Order, therefore, precludes the petitioners to run the canteen in terms of the work order which was earlier issued to it. It also appears that the proprietorship firm which was initially allotted the work order was later on converted by Sudharshan Singh into a partnership firm information of which was given to the respondent-Bokaro Steel Limited after the death of Sudharshan Singh. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of "Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat versus Madhukant M. Mehta" (supra) but in the background of the factual aspects of the present case the same is not applicable.
8. We therefore, do not find any reason to entertain this writ application so far as the prayer for grant of permission to the petitioner to continue with the work order which was earlier granted to Sudharshan Singh a proprietorship concern and consequently we dispose of this writ application.
9. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that there are no dues which are left to be paid to the petitioners, we are giving a liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation giving in details the dues which according to the petitioners are still lying with the respondent-Bokaro Steel Limited within a period of two weeks from today and if the representation is preferred before the respondent no. 5 before whom such representation has to be filed he shall revisit specifically with respect to the dues and pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the representation.
10. It goes without saying that if on consideration of the representation of the petitioner any further amount is due and payable to the petitioner the respondent no. 5 shall take effective measures so that the same is extended to the petitioner which -5- shall be within a period of four weeks from the date of disposal of the representation.
11. This writ application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
12. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Alok/-