Madhya Pradesh High Court
Theme Engineering Services Private ... vs Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways on 15 June, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 15th OF JUNE, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 11546 of 2022
Between:-
THEME ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE
LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE AKHILESH KUMAR SHAU
AGE 35 YEARS S/O LATE LAXMI CHAND SHAU
R/O H. NO. 869 SAHU COAL DEPOT,
VIVEKANAND WARD, YADAV COLONY
JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NAMAN NAGRATH - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
SIDDHARTH SHARMA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND
HIGHWAYS THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1 PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI LL000L
2. CHIEF ENGINEER MINISTRY OF ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS 2ND FLOOR
NIRMAN BHAWAN ARERA HILLS BHOPAL M.P
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. S UPR EIN TEN D EN T MINISTRY OF ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS 2ND FLOOR
NIRMAN BHAWAN ARERA HILLS BHOPAL M.P
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. GUNJAN SINHA JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
NOS. 1 AND 3)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravi
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.06.17 18:49:34 IST
Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the Consultant which runs as a nomenclature of Authority Engineer.
The facts are the same as have been narrated in W.P.No.11494 of 2022 and it arises out of the very same contract between the parties. The difference between W.P.No.11494 of 2022 and this petition is that in so far as W.P.No.11494 of 2022 is concerned, the petitioner therein was the contractor whereas the petitioner herein is the Consultant/ Engineer. A separate agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and the respondents in terms of Annexure P/3 page 56. In view of the various events that have occurred, the respondents have issued the impugned communication vide Annexure P/1 page
37. The penultimate paragraph of the said communication is identical to the one that was considered in W.P.No.11494 of 2022. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same principle and reasoning would apply to the case of the petitioner herein also.
For the reasons assigned in W.P.No.11494 of 2022, this petition is allowed. The impugned communication 02.05.2022, Annexure P/1 in so far as it relates to debarring the petitioner from participating in any tender/RFP issued by the authority is set aside.
The respondents are always at liberty to pursue such remedy as available to them under contract in accordance with law.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
SAN sj
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.06.17 18:49:34 IST