Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is required to notice the interim order dated 15th of May 2020 passed in the writ petition, i.e., WP No. 4795(W) of 2020, wherein the Hon'ble Single Bench, inter alia, held that prima facie there was substance in the argument of HSCL that the impugned order of termination of the contract suffers from a jurisdictional error inasmuch as pursuant to the Office Memo. Dated 22nd of May 2018 of KoPT, a dispute or difference between the public entity, in this case, KoPT and the contractor/HSCL needs to be referred to the AMRCD, which is the internal administrative dispute resolving mechanism.

Therefore, the Hon'ble Single Bench found a jurisdictional error in the action of KoPT to terminate the contract without referring the matter to the AMRCD. The Hon'ble Single Bench also found that prior litigation initiated by M/s. Uma Corporation has not altered the position that HSCL was competent to execute such contracts under the KoPT.

The Hon'ble Single Bench accordingly granted an interim order restraining the respondents from giving effect or further effect to the impugned order of termination dated 1st January 2020 and the notice dated 27th of April 2020 for a specified period.

Learned counsel for the HSWCL has strenuously argued that the aforesaid administrative instruction was required to be strictly adhered to by all public sector undertakings including KoPT and departure therefrom was necessarily prohibited. Although strict compliance is envisaged in clause (8) of the Office Memorandum, no express prohibition upon public sector enterprises to directly approach the courts of law to resolve disputes has been rightly engrafted therein. Furthermore, neither the terms of the Office Memorandum nor the in-house disputes redressal mechanism created therein could take away the right of a party to invoke the terms of a contract, namely, the termination clause. The parties may or may not be justified in doing so. However, its right to terminate the contract cannot be eclipsed by the terms of the Office Memorandum. To do so, would deny a legal entity to 7 remedies under the law of the land which is impermissible in law. On the other hand, the terms of the Office Memorandum may entitle the aggrieved party to knock the doors of the AMRCD before challenging the alleged unlawful termination in court of law. It may be apposite to bear in mind that the existence of a similar in-house mechanism and award passed by it was held by the Apex Court not to operate as an absolute embargo to access to justice in Northern Coalfields Ltd. Vs Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd. [(2016) 8 SCC 685]. In the said report the Court held: