The single judge bench of the Tripura High Court held that since the specific redressal is there and the petitioner was a signatory to the said agreement, therefore, he cannot deviate and ignore the same unless his legitimate rights are infringed upon which are guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the tender was issued by the Respondents- HSCL for the execution of the work. The Petitioner participated in the tender process and emerged as a successful bidder. Thereafter, the letter of acceptance was issued in the favour of the Petitioner in order to inform the Petitioner regarding the acceptance of the Bid. Consequently, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent-HSCL. The communication was made by the Respondent-HSCL to the Petitioner to commence the execution of the balance work and if it didn't happen, the petitioner would face legal consequences. The remaining work would be completed at the petitioner's risk and expense, and the Security Deposit and Performance Bank Guarantee would be forfeited. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was prepared and eager to complete the works, but they were unable to be executed due to the respondents' prolonged lack of action or inactivity. The respondents can’t be allowed to take advantage of their own error, which was failing to notify the decision for approval of the additional expenditure that would be incurred for the execution of the huge quantity of additional/deviation quantum of work.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Dasratharama Reddy Complex Vs. Government of Karnataka and anr., and International Amusement Limited Vs. India Trade Promotion Organisation and anr.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent submitted that the impugned letter is not a letter of action, however, it is a letter of caution. Therefore, this can’t be a subject matter of challenge by way of filing a writ petition and if Petitioner feels aggrieved, then, the remedy lies in the agreement itself. The Respondent referred to clause 25 of the agreement and submitted that it provides the procedure when a person can go to Court.
The Respondent relied upon the judgments titled BSES Ltd. (Now Reliance Energy Ltd.) Vs. Fenner India Ltd and anr., Vinitec Electronics Private Ltd. Vs. HCL Infocystem Ltd.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that since the contract specifies the precise remedy as well as the provision of appeal, receipt of documents, and appreciation of evidence, the petitioner should have exhausted all available remedies under the agreement. Being a signatory to the agreement, the petitioner cannot deviate from or disregard it unless it violates his legitimate rights, which are protected by the Constitution of India.
It was furthermore observed that it is impossible to reach a decision on either side when there are disputed questions of facts and some important information is withheld by one or both sides. While the respondents argued that the petitioner had not finished the work in accordance with the agreement, the petitioner on the one hand claimed to have completed the work. Thus, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot raise this disputed question of fact.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the impugned letter is only a letter of question and not a letter of action. Therefore, this can’t be a subject matter of challenge by filing a Writ Petition before the present court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Case title: Sri Nimai Kar Vs The State of Tripura
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amarnath Goud
Case No.,: WP(C) NO.454 OF 2022
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate. Mr. S. Majumder, Advocate.
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate. Ms. P. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
