Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: itdg in M/S Ganpati Roadways vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Ors on 25 November, 2019Matching Fragments
Patna High Court CWJC No.12695 of 2017 dt.25-11-2019
3. It is further stated that the respondent corporation vide its letter No. BJU/OPS/2016-17 dated 04.10.2016 (Annexure '6' to the writ application) once again called for an explanation showing the justification of non-reporting of the Four Tank Trucks at the consumer destination. The petitioner was informed that a sum of Rs. 40,09,833/- is the total cost of the product which was required to be delivered and the non-delivery of the same made the petitioner liable for the payment of the amount. Since the petitioner had paid Rs. 5 lacs only, the respondent Corporation demanded rest of the payment amounting to Rs. 35,09,833/- by 07.10.2016 failing which the petitioner was threatened with termination of the existing transportation agreement and forfeiture of the security deposit as also other actions which may be deemed fit in ITDG/Tender Agreement.
7. Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would appear from the contents of the Annexure '10' to the writ application, that although Annexure '10' refers to the reply dated 28.09.2016 of the petitioner but it no where discusses or considers the reply of the petitioner. It is also submitted that in its letter dated 04.10.2016 (Annexure '6'to the writ application) the respondent Corporation had clearly provided that in case of failure of the petitioner to make payment of the rest of the amount the Corporation shall be constrained to recover the same by forfeiting the security amount deposited and thereafter action towards termination, forfeiture and deemed action of ITDG/Tender Agreement shall be taken. Since the petitioner had already made payment, there was no reason for taking any action towards blacklisting of the petitioner's Tank Trucks and imposition of penalty in terms of money. It is submitted that the second part of Clause 8.2.2.2 of 'ITDG' provides for imposition of damages which has been wrongly applied as penalty by the Corporation.
11. While assailing the impugned order as contained in Annexure '12' to the writ application, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended as under:
(i) that the respondent Corporation was not justified in passing an order of black listing on 18.07.2017 when the contractual period of three years (with extension) had expired on or about 1st of April, 2017;
(ii) the respondent Corporation had themselves given the petitioner to understand vide Annexure '6' to the writ application vide his letter dated 04.10.2016 that on failure of the petitioner in paying the rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 35,09,833/-, further action towards termination of contract Patna High Court CWJC No.12695 of 2017 dt.25-11-2019 and forfeiture and deemed under ITDG/Tender Agreement shall be taken.
Once the petitioner complied with the direction and paid the rest of the amount within the stipulated period and the same was accepted and the respondent Corporation continued to take work from the petitioner except for loading all those Tank Trucks who had diverted, there was no reason for taking a harsh action of black listing of 11 Tank Trucks by calculating each of the default of one Tank Truck as a default of another Tank Truck and such manner of imposition of penalty is not envisaged in the discipline guidelines (ITDG).