Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(12) Subsequent to passing the aforesaid order and before approaching the petitioner to the authorities of the respondents under the aforesaid liberty to provide copies of requisite documents, on which third show-cause notice was based on the same day i.e. 17/10/2014 in utter violation of the procedure, the terms of the contract and the above- mentioned earlier orders of this Court, the contract was terminated by the respondents-authorities. Accordingly, in compliance of the order dated 17/10/2014 before considering the third show-cause notice, neither the copies of the concerning documents on which such notice was based, were provided to the petitioner nor proper opportunity to file the reply of such notice was given. The intimation of impugned order dated 17/10/2014 (Annexure P/1) terminating the contract unilaterally was given to petitioner on 21/10/2014 through e-mail. According to the termination order Annexure P/1, the contract was terminated on various grounds, stating that according to the terms and conditions the necessary infrastructure has not been established by the petitioner across the State of MP to affix HSRP on the vehicles, the requisite server has not been established at the Headquarter of Transport Authority, Gwalior, after collecting the requisite fees from the owners of the vehicles, within the prescribed period HSRPs were not affixed on their vehicles and in this regard, delay of 7 to 777 days has been caused. On account of such non-affixation of HSRPs within the prescribed period even after taking the sum in advance, according to terms the sum of near about Rs.10 crores had became payable as damages for such delay to the vehicle owners.

(42) On 9.10.2014, while submitting the reply to the second show-cause notice on behalf of the petitioner an application with a prayer to supply the copies of the concerning documents/evidence, on which third show-cause notice was based, as the copies of such complaints given by the vehicle owners were not delivered to the petitioner alongwith the third show cause notice, and extending the period of thirty days' to file reply of such third show-cause notice was also filed.

(43) Apart the above, on the same day i.e. 9.10.2014, the petitioner was informed by the authorities of the respondents through letter that its application dated 24.9.2014, filed for invocation of dispute resolution mechanism under Clause-17 of the contract agreement, has been rejected by holding that there is no such dispute which requires invocation of dispute resolution. In the above- mentioned circumstances, it is apparent that in spite of making demand on behalf of the petitioner copies of the concerning evidence and of complaints, given by the owners of the vehicles to the State authorities against the petitioner that in spite of depositing sums within the prescribed period HSRP has not been affixed by the petitioner on their vehicles and in that regard requisite sums of the damages have not been given by the petitioner to such vehicle owners, have not been given to the petitioner and without extending sufficient opportunity to file reply to third show-cause notice, on the grounds stated in such show-cause notice also the authorities of the respondents were making efforts to terminate the contract. So, the petitioner again came to this Court on 13-10-2014 in the third round of litigation with Writ Petition No.6355/2014. Inter alia in such petition, prayer for quashment of the third show-cause notice dated 24-26/9/2014 as well as aforesaid letter dated 9.10.2014 intimating the petitioner regarding rejection of his application filed for invocation of Clause-17 of the contract agreement for dispute resolution by proposing the name of Arbitrator Justice Usha Mehra as Arbitrator with further prayer for appropriate directions to the authorities of the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry out the work of contract, with a further prayer of direction to invoke Clause 17 of the contract agreement according to its spirit, were made. In presence of the parties, on 17/10/2014 such WP No.6355/2014 has considered and in view of pendency of the matter before the authorities of the respondents in compliance of the earlier directions of this Court dated 5/8/2014 and 9/9/2014 instead of deciding the writ petition on merits, the same was disposed with the following observations and directions:-

(44) As per case of the petitioner, after passing of the aforesaid order under the observations and the liberty given in such order, before approaching the petitioner to the authorities of the respondents with a prayer to supply the copies of evidence and documents on the same day on which the order was passed by this Court, i.e. 17/10/2014 without following the directions given by this Court in the earlier orders, so also without holding any enquiry or extending any opportunity of hearing after supplying copies of the necessary documents to the petitioner, so also without considering the reply and explanation of the petitioner given in the reply of earlier show-cause notices, the contract has been unilaterally terminated by the authorities of the respondents on 17/10/2014 and its intimation was given to the petitioner at belated stage on 20/10/2014. Accordingly, the contract was terminated illegally and in an arbitrary manner so also without following the procedure prescribed under the law and contrary to the principles of natural justice and the existing legal position settled in the above-mentioned quoted decision of the Apex Court.

(49) On issuance of said third show cause notice, the petitioner came to this Court in Writ Petition No.6355/2014 for quashment of the aforesaid third show-cause notice as well the order of rejection of its application of invocation of dispute resolution clause of the contract agreement alongwith some other reliefs. After filing such petition on 13/10/2014 as per available record some inspection of the site regarding compliance of installation of the server at the office of respondent No.2 was made by the appropriate authorities on 15/10/2014 and it was found that the server, installed at the Headquarter of the Transport Commissioner, Gwalior is in working condition. Such fact was acknowledged by the authorities of the respondents but while terminating the contract on such ground such aspect has not been considered. The aforesaid Writ Petition No. 6355/2014 vide order dated 17-10-2014 was considered and disposed of by the Court, keeping in view pendency of the proceedings of second show- cause notice before the authorities and in such premises, instead of entertaining and deciding such petition on merits, the same was disposed of with some directions and observations, so also by extending liberty to the petitioner to approach the authorities of the respondents to supply the copies of the concerning documents and evidence on which such last show-cause notice was based. But, it is apparent that on the same date on which the aforesaid order was passed by this Court in the writ petition i.e. 17/10/2014, before approaching the petitioner to the authorities of the respondents under the extended liberty to supply the copies of the documents and evidence, so also before filing reply of third show-cause notice, the authorities of the respondents had terminated the works contract of the petitioner dated 21/01/2012 on the same day 17-10-2014.