Madhya Pradesh High Court
Alok Kumar Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
WP-1874-2019
[1]
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA
PRADESH, AT JABALPUR
(DIVISION BENCH)
WP-1874-2019
Alok Kumar Choubey ............ Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others ......... Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prakash Shrivastava, Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence :
Mr. Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-
State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting: Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Laid Down:
➔ Whether or not in a particular case the writ court should entertain a petition under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution despite availability of alternative remedy,
would always depend on the fact situation of a given case. Seven well recognized
exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy for entertaining a writ petition under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution are: (i) where the writ petition has been filed
for enforcement of fundamental rights; (ii) where there has been violation of
principle of natural justice; (iii) where the order of proceedings is wholly without
jurisdiction; (iv) where the vires of any Act is under challenge; (v) where availing
of alternative remedy subjects a person to very lengthy proceedings and
unnecessary harassment; (vi) where the writ petition can be entertained despite
alternative remedy if the question raised is purely legal one, there being no
dispute on facts; & (vii) where State or its intermediary in a contractual matter
acts against public good/interest unjustly, unfairly, unreasonably and arbitrarily.
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[2]
➔ When the facts are not in dispute and it has been established to the satisfaction of
the Court that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and contrary to the relevant
stipulations in the agreement and the contract data, the alternative remedy of
dispute resolution system by way of an application to the competent authority and
thereafter to the appellate authority and then thereafter to the Arbitration Tribunal,
in the facts of the present case, cannot be taken as an efficacious alternative
remedy, particularly when Section 17 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran
Adhiniyam, 1983 bars the Tribunal from granting any interim relief.
➔ The contract between the parties is to be interpreted giving the actual meaning to
the words contained in the contract and it is not permissible for the court to make
a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. It
is to be interpreted in such a way that its terms may not be varied. The contract
has to be interpreted without any outside aid. The terms of the contract have to be
construed strictly without altering the nature of the contract, as it may affect the
interest of either of the parties adversely. - Relied - (2019) 19 SCC 9, Adani
Power (Mundra) Limited vs. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and
others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant paragraphs: 16, 17, 20 & 21.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing Convened through Video Conferencing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on this 05th day of January, 2021)
Per: Mohammad Rafiq, CJ
This writ petition has been filed by Alok Kumar Choubey challenging
validity of the order dated 22.12.2018 (Annexure-P/11), passed by the
respondent No.5- Divisional Project Engineer, Public Works Department,
Project Implementation Unit, Division Seoni, Seoni (M.P.), whereby the
amount of performance guarantee (security) submitted by the petitioner for
the work of construction of 100 Seater Chhatravas Building at Lakhnadon,
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[3]
District Seoni including water supply, sanitary fittings and electrification etc.
was forfeited.
2. Mr. Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a proprietorship Firm and is registered as a "C" class
contractor with the respondent-Department. Being the successful bidder, the
petitioner was awarded the work for construction of the aforesaid building
and Letter of Acceptance (for short "LOA") was issued in his favour on
02.06.2014. According to the terms of LOA, the petitioner was required to
execute the entire work within 13 months excluding the rainy season. The
cost of work was Rs.129.50 Lac. An agreement was executed between the
petitioner and the respondents. The time period for maintenance of the
constructed work prescribed in the said agreement was two years from the
date of completion of the work. Reference is made to Clause 18 of the
agreement, Clause 18.1 whereof stipulates that the defect liability period of
work in the contract shall be as per the contract data. It is contended that as
per the stipulation contained in the contract data, the defect liability period in
accordance with Clause 18.3 (GCC) read with its corresponding clause in
contract data shall be of two years. The respondents have wrongly relied on
Clause 29 of the agreement and the corresponding clause of the contract data
and have treated the additional period of three months, beyond the period of
two years, also as part of the defect liability period/maintenance guarantee
period. Learned counsel argued that the period of two years would start from
the date of completion of the work. In the present case, petitioner completed
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[4]
said work on 08.03.2016 and the respondent No.4- Divisional Project
Engineer, PWD had issued a completion certificate in that behalf to the
petitioner on 30.05.2016. No defect whatsoever was pointed out in the work
executed by the petitioner during the aforesaid period of two years. As per
the terms of the contract, the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the
performance guarantee furnished for the maintenance of the work. When the
petitioner vide letter dated 03.05.2018 requested the respondent No.5-
Divisional Project Engineer, PWD for refund of the amount deposited
towards the security and performance guarantee, the respondents by
communication dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure-R/2) required the petitioner to
rectify the mistake in the work as per the inspection report dated 24.05.2018
submitted by the concerned Project Engineer. Learned counsel submitted
that the respondents have misinterpreted the stipulation given in the contract
data in respect of Clause 29 of the agreement, which only provides that the
performance guarantee (security) shall be valid up to three months beyond
the completion of the defect liability period. That however does not have the
effect of extending the defect liability period by additional three months over
and above the period of two years.
3. Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for
the respondents-State opposed the petition by contending that the writ
petition should not be entertained as the petitioner has got efficacious
alternative remedy in view of Clause 12 of the agreement, which provides
for a dispute resolution system. The petitioner has to first approach the
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[5]
competent authority and, if the matter is not decided within 45 days, he can
file appeal before the competent appellate authority within 30 days. If the
grievance is still not redressed, he can approach Madhya Pradesh Arbitration
Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Madhaystam
Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short "the Adhiniyam of 1983"). Learned
Deputy Advocate General submitted that the petitioner does not
automatically become entitle to get refund of the performance guarantee and
security on expiry of maintenance period on 07.03.2018. Though the defect
liability period/maintenance guarantee period for building work was two
years after completion of work on 08.03.2016, but Clause 29 of the contract
data makes it abundantly clear that the performance guarantee (security)
shall be valid for a period of three months beyond the completion of defect
liability period. Therefore, the performance guarantee/security, in this case
shall remain valid till 07.06.2018 i.e., beyond three months from 07.03.2018.
As the petitioner was duly communicated by letter dated 23.05.2018 to
complete the maintenance work and rectify the mistake on the basis of the
inspection report dated 24.05.2018, the respondents were not obliged to
refund the performance guarantee/security to the petitioner.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of
the parties and perused the record.
5. It is significant to note here that the respondents by way of an
application for taking subsequent events on record dated 05.11.2020 have
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[6]
stated that the petitioner has deposited two FDRs bearing Nos. 736049 &
736031, amounting to Rs.6,30,000/- & Rs. 6,65,000/- on 07.12.2016 &
18.07.2018 respectively. The repair work amounting to Rs.3,01,055/- was
done through Maa Narmada Construction and, therefore, the aforesaid
amount was adjusted against the security/performance guarantee submitted
by the petitioner. An amount of Rs.3,63,945/- has been disbursed to the
petitioner vide Cheque No.523333 dated 23.01.2020 and the amount of
Rs.6,30,000/- of the FDR No.736049 has already been refunded to the
petitioner on 22.01.2020.
6. Dealing first of all the preliminary objection of the respondents that
since the petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy in view of
dispute resolution system provided under Clause 12 of the agreement, the
writ petition ought not to be entertained, what is to be seen is whether such
remedy can indeed said to be 'efficacious'. The word 'efficacious' is
adjective according to grammar and its noun is 'efficacy', which is derived
from Latin word 'efficacie' which means capacity to produce results.
Accordingly, the word 'efficacious' means able to produce the intended
effect or result. The Gauhati High Court in Abdul Sammad vs. Executive
Committee of the Marigaon Mahkuma Parishad, AIR 1981 Gau. 15, held
that it is well-known that the meaning of the term "efficacious" is "able to
produce the intended result". The High Court negatived the preliminary
objection raised by the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[7]
petition, as its view was that the alternative remedy provided in that case
was not likely to produce the intended result.
7. In Raja Anand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1081, relying
upon the judgment in White and Collins v. Minister of Health (1939) 2 KB
838, the Supreme Court held that where the jurisdiction of an administrative
authority depends upon a preliminary findings of facts, the High Court is
entitled in a writ proceeding to determine upon its independent judgment
whether or not the finding of facts is correct. In State of Madhya Pradesh v.
D.K. Jadav, AIR 1968 SC 1186, the apex Court again held that when the
jurisdiction of an administrative authority depends on preliminary findings
of fact, the High Court can go into the correctness of the same under Article
8. The Supreme Court in Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. and Others v.
Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and Others - (1988) 1 SCC 401, held
that normally in a case where tax or money has been realized without the
authority of law, there is in such cases concomitant duty to refund the
realization as a corollary of the constitutional inhibition that should be
respected unless it causes injustice or loss in any specific case or violates
any specific provision of law. If the tax was collected without authority of
law, the respondents had no authority to retain the money and were liable to
refund the same, held the Supreme Court. It held that in an application under
Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court has power to direct refund,
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[8]
however, courts have made a distinction between those cases where a
claimant approaches a High Court seeking relief of obtaining refund only
and those where refund is sought as a consequential relief after striking
down of the order of assessment etc. A petition solely praying for issue of a
writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money allegedly
collected by the State of tax is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple
reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against
authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax. In Godavari
Sugar Mills Limited vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported in (2011) 2
SCC 439, also it was held by the Supreme Court that there is a distinction
between cases where a claimant approaches the High Court seeking the
relief of obtaining only refund and those where refund is sought as a
consequential relief after striking down the order of assessment.
9. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs.
Registrar of Trade Marks, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, is the landmark
decision on the question of maintainability of writ petition despite
availability of alternative remedy. In that case too, it was held by the
Supreme Court that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court
having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to
entertain a writ petition. The High Court has imposed upon itself certain
restrictions, one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is
available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction, but
the alternative remedy has been consistently held by the Supreme Court not
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[9]
to operate as a bar in at least four contingencies, namely, where the writ
petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights
or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or
where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or where the
vires of an Act is challenged.
In Whirlpools Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court followed its
earlier two Constitution Bench judgments in A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector
of Customs v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani- AIR 1961 SC 1506 and
Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, Companies Distt. - AIR 1961 SC 372.
In A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs (supra), the Supreme
Court held as under :-
"The passages in the judgments of this Court we have extracted
would indicate (1) that the two exceptions which the learned
Solicitor General formulated to the normal rule as to the effect of
the existence of an adequate alternative remedy were by no
means exhaustive, and (2) that even beyond them a discretion
vested in the High Court to have entertained the petition and
granted the petitioner relief notwithstanding the existence of an
alternative remedy. We need only add that the broad lines of the
general principles on which the Court should act having been
clearly laid down, their application to the facts of each particular
case must necessarily be dependent on a variety of individual fact
which must govern the proper exercise of the discretion of the
Court, and that in a matter which is thus preeminently one of
discretion, it is not possible or even if it were, it would not be
desirable to lay down inflexible rules which should be applied
with rigidity in every case which comes up before the Court."
In Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court held as
under:
"Though the writ of prohibition or certiorari will not issue against
Signature
SAN Not an executive authority, the High Courts have power to issue in a
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[10]
fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting
without jurisdiction. Where such action of an executive authority
acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person
to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment, the High
Courts will issue appropriate orders or directions to prevent such
consequences. Writ of certiorari and prohibition can issue against
the Income Tax Officer acting without jurisdiction under Section
34, Income Tax Act."
10. The Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v. State of
Haryana and Another - (2000) 10 SCC 482, has added one more exception
to the rule of alternative remedy, namely, the writ petition can be entertained
despite alternative remedy if the question raised is purely legal one, there
being no dispute on facts.
11. In Verigamto Naveen vs. Govt. of A.P. and others, reported in (2001)
8 SCC 344, the Supreme Court held that the freedom of the Government to
enter into business with anybody it likes is subject to the condition of
reasonableness and fair play as well as public interest. It was further held
that after entering into a contract, in cancelling the contract, which is subject
to terms of the statutory provisions, it cannot be said that the matter falls
purely in a contractual field and therefore, it cannot be held that since the
matter arises purely on contract, interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution is not called for.
12. In State of Tripura v. Manoranjan Chakraborty, (2001) 10 SCC 740,
the Apex Court held that if gross injustice is done and it can be shown that
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[11]
for good reason the Court should interfere, then notwithstanding the
alternative remedy which may be available by way of appeal or revision, a
Writ Court can in an appropriate case exercise its jurisdiction to do
substantial justice.
13. In State of H.P. And Others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited and
Another - AIR 2005 SC 3936, the Supreme Court while considering the
objection of alternative remedy to filing of writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution, held that despite existence of alternative remedy, it is
within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of
the Constitution. But normally the High Court should not interfere if there is
efficacious alternative remedy is available. If somebody approaches the
High Court without availing alternative remedy provided, the High Court
should ensure that he has made out a strong case that there exists good
ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. Following observations of
the Supreme Court are reproduced herein for the facility of reference :-
"Where under a statute there is an allegation of infringement of
fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing
authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do
not possess can be the grounds on which the writ petitions can be
entertained. But normally, the High Court should not entertain
writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a
case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer,
something which would show that it would be a case of palpable
injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies
provided by the statute. It was noted by this Court in L. Hirday
Narain v. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly, AIR (1971) SC 33 that if
the High Court had entertained a petition despite availability of
Signature Not
alternative remedy and heard the parties on merits it would be
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[12]
ordinarily unjustifiable for the High Court to dismiss the same on
the ground of non exhaustion of statutory remedies; unless the
High Court finds that factual disputes are involved and it would
not be desirable to deal with them in a writ petition."
14. In Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India vs. Devi Ispat Limited,
(2010) 11 SCC 186, the Supreme Court held that writ of mandamus can be
issued even in contractual matters and in paragraph- 28 of the said judgment,
the apex Court held as under:-
"28. It is clear that (a) in the contract if there is a clause for
arbitration, normally, a writ court should not invoke its
jurisdiction; (b) the existence of effective alternative remedy
provided in the contract itself is a good ground to decline to
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226; and (c)
if the instrumentality of the State acts contrary to the public good,
public interest, unfairly, unjustly, unreasonably discriminatory
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in its
contractual or statutory obligation, writ petition would be
maintainable. However, a legal right must exist and
corresponding legal duty on the part of the State and if any action
on the part of the State is wholly unfair or arbitrary, writ courts
can exercise their power. In the light of the legal position, writ
petition is maintainable even in contractual matters, in the
circumstances mentioned in the earlier paragraphs."
15. In Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India and
Others, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728, the Supreme Court held that the State
in its executive capacity, even in the contractual field, is under obligation to
act fairly and cannot practice some discrimination. If the facts of such case
are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can
only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, Involving
Signature
SAN Not examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[13]
conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution.
16. Seven well recognized exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy,
which can be culled out from the afore-discussed judgments of the Supreme
Court for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution, can be summarized thus: (i) where the writ petition has been
filed for enforcement of fundamental rights; (ii) where there has been
violation of principle of natural justice; (iii) where the order of proceedings
is wholly without jurisdiction; (iv) where the vires of any Act is under
challenge; (v) where availing of alternative remedy subjects a person to very
lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment; (vi) where the writ
petition can be entertained despite alternative remedy if the question raised
is purely legal one, there being no dispute on facts; and (vii) where State or
its intermediary in a contractual matter acts against public good/interest
unjustly, unfairly, unreasonably and arbitrarily. Despite afore-noted
exceptions, especially fifth and seventh of the above, whether or not in a
particular case the writ court should entertain a petition under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India rather than requiring the petitioner to
avail alternative remedy, would always depend on the facts situation of a
given case, upon the petitioner making out a strong case. If it is shown that
the facts of the case are not disputed and the Government or its
instrumentality has been found acting unjustly, unfairly and unreasonably
even in regard to its contractual obligations, the High Court would be
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[14]
justified in entertaining the writ petition despite availability of alternative
remedy.
17. In view of what has been discussed above, the question is no longer
res integra that if instrumentality of the State acts contrary to the public
good, public interest unfairly, unjustly, unreasonably, discriminatory and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in its contractual or
statutory obligation, the writ petition would be maintainable.
18. It is not in dispute that the defect liability period/maintenance
guarantee period is two years from the date of completion of the work. This
period shall commence on 08.03.2016 and come to end on 07.03.2018. The
question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether by virtue
of what has been stated in the contract data in respect of Clause 29, the
defect liability period/maintenance guarantee period shall stand extended by
further three months? In order to correctly appreciate the stipulation
contained in relevant clauses of the agreement and the corresponding clauses
of the contract data, it would be appropriate to reproduce Clauses 18 and 29
of the agreement and the contract data, which read as under:
"CLAUSE 18 OF THE AGREEMENT
18. Correction of Defects noticed during the Defect Liability
Period
18.1 The Defect Liability Period of work in the contract shall be as
per the Contract Data.
18.2 The Contractor shall promptly rectify all defects pointed out by
the Engineer well before the end of the Defect Liability Period.
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[15]
The Defect Liability Period shall automatically stand extended
until the defect is rectified.
18.3 If the Contractor has not corrected a Defect pertaining to the
Defect Liability Period to the satisfaction of the Engineer,
within the time specified by the Engineer, the Engineer will
assess the cost of having the Defect corrected, and the cost of
correction of the Defect shall be recovered from the
Performance Security or any amount due or that may become
due to the contractor and other available securities.
*** *** ***
CLAUSE 29 OF THE AGREEMENT
29. Performance Security
The Contractor shall have to submit performance security and
additional performance security, if any, as specified in the Bid
Data Sheet at the time of signing of the contract. The contractor
shall have to ensure that such performance security and
additional performance security, if any, remains valid for the
period as specified in the Contract Data.
*** *** ***
CONTRACT DATA
GCC Particulars Data
Clause
18 Defect (C) For Building works - 2 years
Liability To execute, complete and maintain
Period works in accordance with agreement
and special conditions of contract
(SGC) after issue of physical
completion certificate as per
"Annexure-U"
Note: in accordance with clause 18.3 (GCC),
the Engineer in Charge shall intimate
the contractor about the cost assessed
for making good the defects and if
the contractor has not corrected
defects, action for correction of
defects shall be taken by the
Engineer in Charge as below :
(a) Deploy departmental labour and
material
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[16]
or
(b) Engage a contractor by issuing a work
order at contract rate/SOR rate
or
(c) Sanction supplementary work in an
existing agreement to a contractor for
zonal works or similar other work
or
(d) Invite open tender
or
(e) Combination of above
29 Performance Three months beyond the completion of
guarantee Defect Liability period (Maintenance
(Security) Guarantee Period)"
shall be
valid up to
19. Clause 18.1 of the agreement provides that the defect liability period
of work in the contract shall be as per the contract data. The corresponding
Clause 18 in the contract data provides that the defect liability period would
be of two years. It is not disputed even by the respondents that the defect
liability period is only of two years from the date of completion of the work.
Clause 18.2 of the agreement provides that the Contractor shall promptly
rectify all defects pointed out by the Engineer well before the end of the
defect liability period. However, additionally it provides that the defect
liability period shall automatically stand extended until the defect is
rectified. It is in this context that the contract data in respect of Clause 29
has provided that performance guarantee/security shall be valid up to three
months beyond the completion of the defect liability period. This is because
that if any defect has been pointed out during the currency of the defect
Signature Not
liability period and if despite that, the Contractor has not removed the defect,
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[17]
the defect liability period shall automatically extended until the defect is
rectified. In order to safeguard against such an eventuality, Clause 29 in
contract data provides that the performance guarantee/security shall
extended for further three months, beyond the competition of the defect
liability period. The very fact that the contract data in the relevant Clause 29
has provided that the performance guarantee/security shall be valid up to
three months beyond the completion of the defect liability period
(maintenance guarantee period), implies that the period of two years has
been accepted as a defect liability period and it is only after this period that
the performance guarantee/security has been taken to be extended for a
further period of three months. Given the fact that there is no dispute about
the defect liability period being of two years, the respondents on the basis of
what has been stated in the contract data are not justified to claim that the
additional period of three months would also be part of the defect liability
period.
20. The Supreme Court in Adani Power (Mundra) Limited vs. Gujarat
Electricity Regulatory Commission and others, reported in (2019) 19 SCC
9, after considering the plethora of case-laws, held that the contract between
the parties is to be interpreted giving the actual meaning to the words
contained in the contract and it is not permissible for the court to make a
new contract, howsoever reasonable, if the parties have not made it
themselves. It is to be interpreted in such a way that its terms may not be
varied. The contract has to be interpreted without any outside aid. The terms
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[18]
of the contract have to be construed strictly without altering the nature of the
contract, as it may affect the interest of either of the parties adversely.
21. In the facts of the case, action of the respondents in withholding the
amount of the performance guarantee (security) of the petitioner is held to be
arbitrary and unreasonable, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. The respondents are therefore not justified in withholding the
amount of performance guarantee (security) deposited by the petitioner and
then insisting upon the petitioner to invoke arbitration clause rather than
invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. When the facts are not in dispute and it has been established to the
satisfaction of this Court that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and
contrary to the relevant stipulations in the agreement and the contract data,
the availability of alternative remedy, in the facts of the present case, cannot
justify rejection of the present writ petition on the spacious plea of
alternative remedy. The alternative remedy of dispute resolution system by
way of an application to the competent authority and thereafter to the
appellate authority and then thereafter to the Arbitration Tribunal, in the
facts of the present case, cannot be taken as an efficacious alternative
remedy, particularly when Section 17 of the Adhiniyam of 1983 bars the
Tribunal from granting any interim relief. In the facts of the present case,
requiring the petitioner to go through the process of dispute resolution
system provided for under Clause 12 of the agreement, would amount to
subjecting him to lengthy proceedings without there being any remedy of
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
WP-1874-2019
[19]
interim relief, inasmuch as the question raised in the present writ petition is
purely legal one, based on interpretation of Clause 29 of the Contract Data
and the impugned action of the respondent is totally against the public good,
being highly unjust, unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. Clauses v, vi & vii of
the exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, as enumerated in Para-16
above, are therefore clearly attracted in the present case.
22. In view of the above, the present writ petition deserves to succeed and
is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the entire amount
of performance guarantee (security), after adjusting the amount already paid
to the petitioner, together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date
petitioner first demanded the refund i.e. from 03.05.2018, till the date of
actual refund, both on the amount already paid and now due to be paid, for
the period such amount was unduly withheld by the respondents. The
compliance of the present order shall be made within three months from the
date of production of copy of this order before the respondents.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
[email protected]
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.01.15
16:24:59 IST
