Orissa High Court
WP(C)/14752/2020 on 15 July, 2020
W.P.(C) No.14752 of 2020
02. 15.07.2020 Heard Mr. Ashok Das, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A.K. Bose, learned
Asst. Solicitor General for Government of India and Mr. S. Goutam
Das, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 by Video
Conferencing mode.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner,
namely, Shri Pradeep Kumar Behera challenging the fresh Notice
Inviting Tender dated 12.06.2020 vide Annexure-3 issued by opp.
party No.2-Director, Indian Institute of Science Education and
Research, Berhampur by which bids have been invited for hiring of
School Bus of various seater. In the said Notice Inviting Tender
dated 12.06.2020, the bids were to be submitted. Last date of
submission of bid was 15.07.2020. Both technical as well as
financial bid were required to be submitted online.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant
to Annexure-1, NIT dated 12.06.2020, inviting bids for (1) Hiring
of 26 seater School Bus, (2) Hiring of 52 seater School Bus, (3) 7
seater car (Innova or substantially equivalent) (4) 5 seater car
(Maruti Swift Dzire or substantially equivalent). The petitioner has
submitted his bid agreement vide Annexure-2 with him for hiring
of six 26 Seater Bus and one 52 Seater Bus. He further submits
that as per condition No.11 of the Commercial Bid Terms and
conditions of contract validity, was for three years. In order to
provide services for 3 years, he had purchased new vehicles of
different models by incurring loan as new vehicles had been
demanded by the opp. parties. But before one year was
completed, the opp. parties have returned the vehicles of the
petitioner and a fresh tender notice vide Annexure-3 has been
published inviting bids for vehicles, which is arbitrary and illegal.
-2-
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the
petitioner has provided satisfactory service, he should have been
allowed to operate the vehicles with the opp. parties for three
years as per the aforesaid condition No.11.
Condition No.11 on which reliance has been placed is to
the following effect:
"The hiring contract shall be for an initial period of
01 (one) year and can be extended at the same
terms and conditions for further period of two
more years (but one year at a time) on
satisfactory performance. The contract can be
terminated by IISER Berhampur at any point of
time by giving Three Months' notice, in which case
no compensation shall be admissible for the
uncompleted period of the contract."
According to the aforesaid condition, the hiring contract
was for initial period of one year, but it can be extended on the
same terms and conditions for further period of two years that too
one year at a time, on satisfactory performance. The agreement
with the opp. parties executed with the petitioner for hiring his
vehicles under Annexure-2 was with effect from 01.08.2019 to
30.06.2020. According to the petitioner, even before 30.06.2020 the opp. parties have returned the vehicles of the petitioner without giving him any notice.
The contention of learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 is that there are about 50 complaints against the petitioner that his performance was found to be highly unsatisfactorily. Therefore, the opposite party No.2 has intended not to extend the contract with the petitioner for further period.
Whether or not the agreement shall be extended for a further period of two years, that is at the option/discretion of the -3- opp. parties. If they find the performance of the petitioner is satisfactory, they would have option to extend the contract by one year at a time for total period of two more years. On available facts, no mandamus can be issued to the opp. parties to renew the contract. As regards the returning the vehicle even before 30.06.2020, it is open for the petitioner to sue the opp. parties for claiming damages or compensation.
This Court is not inclined to grant the prayer in the present writ petition as non-extension of contract period cannot be a basis for us to interfere with the fresh NIT, particularly when the petitioner has not been debarred from participating in the fresh tender process.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
As lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.
(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice (S. Pujahari) Judge SKJ