Madhya Pradesh High Court
Wpil Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 April, 2024
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 26 th OF APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 9971 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
WPIL LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY SHRI ARYA SARKAR S/O SHRI
SAMARENDRANATH SARKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
REGISTRED OFFICE TRINITY PLAZA 84/1A, TOPSIA
ROAD (SOUTH) KOLKATA (WEST BENGAL)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.N. SINGH - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ARPAN PAWAR -
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH JAL NIGAM THRUOGH ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, 8 ARERA HILLS BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH
JAL NIGAM 8 ARERA HILLS BHOPAL` (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH
JAL NIGAM MARYADIT 8 ARERA HILLS BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 5/2/2024
6:24:43 PM
2
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
ORDER
The respondent No.2 issued NIT dated 21.01.2022 for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, Testing, Commissioning Trial Run and Operation & Maintenance of various components of Nirmani 2 Multi-Village Scheme, District Khargone (M.P.). It was intended to provide potable drinking water for a cluster of 130 villages consisting of 21,000 households. Petitioner and others participated in the NIT. Petitioner was declared as a successful bidder. Documentation was executed. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 the contract of the petitioner was terminated. Questioning the same, the instant petition is filed.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. That there is failure by the respondents which accounted for the delay in completion of the project. That for reasons of the acts and omissions of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the same and that if sufficient time and compliance of other formalities is done, he will complete the contract within time.
3. On considering the contentions, we do not find any ground to interfere with the same. Vide impugned order dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-33) contract has been terminated. In terms whereof, it is indicated that the petitioner has failed to deliver his performance as required under the contract and thereby the larger public interest has been hampered. Based on the table produced therein the progress till February 2024 is shown as 28.99% and only 13.49% of physical progress has been achieved in the last 6 months. That communications were undertaken along with meeting at head office with regard to the completion Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 5/2/2024 6:24:43 PM 3 of projects on 15.12.2023, 10.01.2024 and 24.01.2024. Clear directions were issued in the meeting regarding the poor progress, lack of proper planning and regular follow up by the petitioner.
4. That even after serving the notice for termination, the progress achieved demonstrates and establishes lack of proper planning and inadequate use of legitimate efforts as desired or expected of the petitioner-firm in terms of the timeline stated in the terms of contract. That it is established beyond doubt that the firm has failed to perform the obligation as per the contract viz.,
1. To complete the project within the scheduled completion time.
2. To achieve the expected by desired physical and financial progress of the project.
3. To deploy adequate manpower and machines.
5. In continuation of the aforesaid meeting, yet another review meeting was conducted in the presence of the petitioner's representatives on 21.02.2024 to review the progress. However, progress till 29.02.2024 has been completely unsatisfactory. Hence for all these grounds, contract is terminated.
6. We are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner especially in view of the fact that the terms of contract provide for a dispute resolution in terms of Clause 8.7. In terms whereof, a dispute is required to be raised within a period of 45 days and when such a dispute is raised, the same shall be decided within a period of 45 days thereafter. This provision of the dispute resolution system has already been availed of by the writ petitioner by raising a dispute in terms of Annexure P/34 dated 18.03.2024. Therefore, it is necessary that the respondents will have to consider the dispute within a period of 45 days. Thereafter the provision of appeal and other provisions have been made in the said clause.
7. In view of the availability of the alternate and efficacious remedy and in view of the fact that the alternate and efficacious remedy has been invoked by Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 5/2/2024 6:24:43 PM 4 the petitioner, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition. The same being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
LR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 5/2/2024
6:24:43 PM