M/S Tara Construction vs Madhya Pradesh Rural Road ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9910 MP

                            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 19th OF JULY, 2022

                 WRIT PETITION No. 6801 of 2020

     Between:-
     M/S TARA CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS
     PARTNER SONABACCHA AGRAHARI S/O LATE
     RAMCHANDRA AGRAHARI AGE 58 YEARS
     CONTRACTOR, R/O VILLAGE MEORPUR, POST
     MEORPUR    TAHSIL   DUDDHI,  DISTRICT
     SONBHADRA (UTTAR PRADESH)

                                                    .....PETITIONER
     (SHRI SOURABH SINGH THAKUR - ADVOCATE)

     AND

1.   THE MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD
     DEVELOPMENT     AUTHORITY   THROUGH
     GENERAL MANAGER, BLOCK NO.2, FIFTH
     FLOOR, PARYAVAS BHAWAN, ARERA HILLS,
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M.P.RURAL ROAD
     DEVELOPMENT           AUTHORITY, BHOPAL
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.   CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, M.P. RURAL ROAD
     DEVELOPMENT     AUTHORITY,      TANSEN
     COMPLEX, SIRMOUR CHOURAHA, DISTRICT
     REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   GENERAL MANAGER, M.P. RURAL ROAD
     DEVELOPMENT          AUTHORITY, PROJECT
     IMPLEMENTATION UNIT NO.2, WAIDHAN,
     DISTRICT SINGROULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.   TEHSILDAR, D UD HI , DISTRICT SONBHADRA
     (UTTAR PRADESH)

                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                                  2
          (SHRI VIPIN MISHRA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4
          - ABSENT)

       This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
                                     ORDER

The case of the petitioner is that it is a registered Government Contractor. Based on the advertisement issued by the respondents inviting tender for construction and maintenance of the road from village Atraba-Khadoli and Jiyaban-Antraba under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, the petitioner bid for the same along with others. The petitioner was conveyed the acceptance of the contract. The documents were executed. On 03.02.2015, a communication

was addressed to the respondent No.2 seeking for additional time to complete the aforesaid package work. Nothing came of it. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 terminated the contract awarded to the petitioner. He sought for rescission of the same. The respondent No.2, thereafter, rejected the application submitted by him.

The respondent No.3 sought to recover a sum of Rs.63,72,656/-. Out of which, Rs.9,36,377/- was adjusted from security whereas, Rs.54,36,279/- has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner under different heads. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the same before the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Bhopal in Reference Case No.08 of 2020. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 issued a Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) seeking to recover Rs.54,36,279/- from the petitioner. Questioning the same, the instant petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents cannot recover the said amount since the matter is pending adjudication before the Tribunal. The said issue has already received attention by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of M/s Tulsi Narayan Garg, Sarawagi Mohalla, Sheopur Through its Proprietor Tulsi Narayan Garg vs. The M.P. Road Development Authority, Bhopal and others in Civil Appeal Nos.6726-6729 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos.1436-1439 of 2019) decided on 30.08.2019, wherein it was held that without adjudication, no recovery can be effected by the respondents.

None appears for the respondents.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considered the aforesaid judgment.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Tulsi Narayan Garg 's case (supra) have clearly held that so far as the recovery is concerned, if the matter is seized of by the Tribunal then no such recovery can be effected. The recovery, if any, can only be effected after the disposal of the matter by the Tribunal. During the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, the State cannot initiate recovery proceedings against the party. Hence, on this ground, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned recovery through RRC dated 14.01.2020 (Annexure P-

10) issued by the respondent No.5 is quashed. Rule made absolute.

                                    (RAVI MALIMATH)                                      (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                      CHIEF JUSTICE                                           JUDGE
                            S/




Digitally signed by SACHIN
CHAUDHARY
Date: 2022.07.20 14:12:56 +05'30'