Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. An order dated 7.10.2003 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "G.M.D.A.") terminating an agreement dated 8.10.2002 executed in favour of the writ petitioner No. 1 for improvement of G.M.D.A.'s Truck Parking Yard at Gotanagar on build, operate and transfer basic (B.O.T.) has been put to challenge in the present writ petition. The facts, in brief, may be noted at the outset :-

2. A notice inviting tenders was published by the respondent No. 2 inviting bids for the work of improvement of G.M.D.A.'s Truck Parking Yard at Gotanagor on B.O.T. basis. As per the N.I.T., the successful bidder was required to complete the Parking Yard with its own resources as per the specifications given by the respondent authority. After completion of the work, the successful bidder was to be allowed to operate the Parking Yard for a fixed period and during the period of such operation, the successful bidder was required to pay an agreed amount to the authority out of the revenue collected by him. On the completion of expiry of the period of operation, the Parking Yard was required to be handed over by the contractor to the respondent authority.

4. According to the petitioner, a show cause notice dated 25.8.2003 was served on the petitioner alleging that a report has been received from the Superintendent of Police (City), Kamrup, Guwahati, to the effect that the petitioner No. 1 was indulging in extortion of money from trucks inspite of repeated warnings and that some employees of the petitioner No. 1, who were involved in such illegal activities, had been arrested by police. On the aforesaid basis, contravention of Clauses 5 and 9 of the Additional Conditions of the Contract was alleged and the petitioner No. 1 was asked to show cause as to why the agreement should not be terminated. On receipt of the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner No. 1, by its letter dated 28.8.2003, requested the Respondent authority for a copy of the Superintendent of Police's letter referred to in the show cause notice dated 25.8.2003 so as to enable it to file an effective reply against the show cause notice in question. By a letter dated 8.9.2003, the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that the letter of the Superintendent of Police sought for, cannot be furnished to the petitioner and that has reply should be submitted on or before 12.9.2003. The writ petitioner, in the aforesaid circumstances, obtained a copy of the F.I.R. dated 4.8.2003, reference to which had been made in the show cause notice dated 25.8.2003 and thereafter on 12.9.2003 filed its reply to the show cause notice in question. Thereafter the impugned order dated 7.10.2003 was issued cancelling the contract agreement and ordering for taking over the possession of the Parking Yard from the petitioner No. 1, which direction, on the materials on record, appear to have been duly effected.

7. Elaborate arguments have been advanced on behalf of both the parties by the learned counsels representing them.

Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that the affidavit filed by the Respondents would go to show that in respect of the incident in question, after the F.I.R. was filed on 4.8.2003, the allegations made were enquired into by the Officer-in-Charge of the Jalukbari Police Station, who submitted a report dated 7.8.2.2003 to the Superintendent of Police (City), Guwahati. It is on the aforesaid basis that the Superintendent of Police (City), Guwahati had written the letter dated 8.8.2003 to the Respondent No. 1, whereafter the impugned show cause notice dated 25.8.2003 was issued. Neither the report of the Officer-in-Charge, Jalukbari Police Station dated 7.8.2003, nor the letter of the Superintendent of Police (City), Guwahad dated 8.8.2003 was furnished to the writ petitioner along with the show cause notice. In fact the letter dated 8.8.2003 of the Superintendent of Police (City), Guwahati though specifically asked for, was refused to the writ petitioner. That apart, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned cancellation made by order dated 7.10.2003 has been resorted to on the basis of another complaint/report of the Superintendent of Police (City) dated 15.9.2003 containing similar allegations of extortion. However, no copy of the aforesaid report and no opportunity to show cause in respect of the aforesaid allegation was afforded to the writ petitioner prior to the impugned order dated 7.10.2003. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order was passed in fragrant violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently on the aforesaid question alone, this writ petition should be allowed and the matter be sent back to for a de novo consideration by the Respondent No. 1, after giving the petitioner a full opportunity to show cause.