Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Yadav Construction Through ... vs Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development ... on 31 January, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2569
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 31st OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40876 of 2024
ONKAR YADAV A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM THROUGH SHRI
ONKAR YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondent [CAVEAT].
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 5641 of 2024
M/S B.M. AGARWAL (PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM) THROUGH ITS
PROPRIETOR MR. B.M. AGRAWAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
WRIT PETITION No. 5643 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 01-02-2025
12:41:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2569
-2-
JAGDISH SAXENA CONTRACTOR JV PRANJAL CONSTRUCTION
THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI JAGDISH
SAX
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(PIU) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Paliwal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
WRIT PETITION No. 5646 of 2024
M/S R K CONTRUCTION THROUGH AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE SHRI MAYUR KUMAR JHALA
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(PIU) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Paliwal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2.
WRIT PETITION No. 5647 of 2024
MS/ R K CONTRUCTION THROUGH AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE SHRI MAYUR KUMAR JHALA
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(PIU) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Paliwal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 01-02-2025
12:41:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2569
-3-
WRIT PETITION No. 5649 of 2024
M/S R K CONTRUCTION THROUGH AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE SHRI MAYUR KUMAR JHALA
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(PIU) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Paliwal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2.
WRIT PETITION No. 5651 of 2024
M/S BINDAL DEVELOPERS THROUGH AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE NARSINGH BINDAL
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(PIU) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Paliwal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2.
WRIT PETITION No. 6638 of 2024
M/S OMPRAKASH MAHESHWARI PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. OMPRAKASH MAHESHWARI
AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 01-02-2025
12:41:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2569
-4-
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3.
WRIT PETITION No. 7198 of 2024
M/S H.S.C. INFRA PROJECT PVT. LTD. PRIVATE LIMITED
COMPANY THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. RAJENDRA SINGH C
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3.
WRIT PETITION No. 7637 of 2024
M/S H.S.C. INFRA PROJECT PVT. LTD. PRIVATE LIMITED
COMPANY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3.
WRIT PETITION No. 7647 of 2024
M/S H.S.C. INFRA PROJECT PVT. LTD. PRIVATE LIMITED
COMPANY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 01-02-2025
12:41:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2569
-5-
WRIT PETITION No. 7720 of 2024
M/S H.S.C. INFRA PROJECT PVT. LTD. CO.
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3.
WRIT PETITION No. 8138 of 2024
M/S RAJENDRA KUMAR KALYANMAL MANTRI
PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR.
RAJENDRA KUMA MAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3.
WRIT PETITION No. 8542 of 2024
M/S YADAV CONSTRUCTION THROUGH AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE SHRI RAVINDRA YADAV
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(PIU) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Paliwal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 01-02-2025
12:41:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2569
-6-
WRIT PETITION No. 8550 of 2024
M/S YADAV CONSTRUCTION THROUGH AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE SHRI RAVINDRA YADAV
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(PIU) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Paliwal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2.
WRIT PETITION No. 8558 of 2024
M/S YADAV CONSTRUCTION JV M/S BHUPENDRA SINGH
SISODIYA THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI
RAVIND
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(PIU) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Paliwal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2.
WRIT PETITION No. 14203 of 2024
M/S SUNIL KUMAR MADANLAL SHARMA
Versus
M.P. RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER M.P.R.R.D.A AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Jain - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondent [CAVEAT].
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 01-02-2025
12:41:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2569
-7-
WRIT PETITION No. 16297 of 2024
M/S MID INDIA CIVIL ERECTOR PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI REHAN KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondent [CAVEAT].
WRIT PETITION No. 16298 of 2024
M/S. CHIRAG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THROUGH ITS
PROPRIETOR SHRI MEHRUDDIN KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondent [CAVEAT].
WRIT PETITION No. 16572 of 2024
M/S CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
SHRI AMITOSH CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.2 & 3.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 01-02-2025
12:41:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2569
-8-
WRIT PETITION No. 19978 of 2024
M/S PRABHUNATH SINGH CONTRACTOR THROUGH
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI PRABHUNATH SINGH
RATHORE
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
PIU CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER BHOPAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Govind Pal Singh Songara - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2.
WRIT PETITION No. 24506 of 2024
M/S AMIT CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS PARTNER VIAJY
RAJAN
Versus
M.P. RURAL RAOD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Asudani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
WRIT PETITION No. 31241 of 2024
M/S PRABHUNATH SINGH CONTRACTOR THROUGH
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI PRABHUNATH SINGH
RATHORE
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(PIU) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Govind Pal Singh Songara - Advocate for the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 01-02-2025
12:41:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2569
-9-
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
These petitioners have filed the present petitions challenging
the impugned order, whereby the respondents have directed for money
recovery on the ground that they submitted the bills of the purchase of
bitumen from private party whereas they were required to purchase the
bitumen from public sector refineries / Government oil refineries.
02. In all these writ petitions, the period of contract and amount of
recovery is different, but since the issue is common that whether the
recovery can be made from the petitioners even if the bitumen was
purchased from private entities. The similar issue came up for
consideration before the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat
Jabalpur and vide order dated 22.05.2024 in Writ Petition No.13981 of
2024, the petition has been dismissed with liberty to avail the remedy in
accordance with the law. The order dated 22.05.2024 is reproduced
below:
"Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.03.2024 and letter dated
24.04.2024 (Annexure P/8) issued by respondent No.3 whereby
petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.
51,97,471/- on account of submission of private bills of bitumen
not issued by the public sector refineries.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a
proprietorship firm involved in civil construction and
maintenance. After being successful in the bid, petitioner was
allotted the tender and issued a letter of acceptance dated
17.02.2020 for construction and routine maintenance of rural road
under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna in Mandsaur
District. The construction was completed and after satisfaction by
the respondents, petitioner submitted the final payment bill
voucher along with receipt of bitumen bills. Respondent No. 3
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2569
issued show cause notice dated 14.07.2022 and 30.11.2023 for
calling original bills of bitumen to which the petitioner submitted
reply on 04.12.2023. However, without considering the reply and
the documents filed by the petitioner, respondent No.3 issued the
impugned communication dated 19.03.2024 and 24.04.2024
raising demand of Rs. 51,97,471/- against the petitioner in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the road
constructed and maintained with the usage of said bitumen have
been recorded in the measurement book and taken into
consideration and being approved while drawing the final bill of
the petitioner for the work. As per Clause 4 Condition of Contract
of the Standard Bidding Document, Condition No. 4.6B
prescribes for price adjustment providing for grant of any
variation in the cost of bitumen or steel on theoretical
consumption. Further, the respondents have raised objection on
the ground of purchase of bitumen from private refinery and that
the bills have not been submitted by the petitioner. It is not the
case of the respondents that the bitumen is of inferior or lesser
quality. The conduct of the respondents in firstly permitting the
petitioner to lay the bitumen and thereafter issuing order for
recovery on the basis of audit objection is not permissible on the
touchstone of Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. Further, as per
the contractual terms, no consequence is provided for non
purchase of bitumen from the government refineries. No other
efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner at this stage other
than to approach this Court against the impugned action of the
respondents. Hence, on these grounds, the writ petition deserves
to be entertained.
4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of
State of Karnatak vs. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, (1987) 2
SCC 160 wherein it is held that adjudication of concerning the
contract violation by either of those privy to the contract cannot
be legal. This is because allowing a party to the agreement to
serve as the arbiter in their own case contradicts the fundamental
principle of nemo debetesse judex in propria causa meaning one
should not be a judge in their own cause. Learned counsel has
also placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in
case of B.B.Verma vs. State of M.P., 2007 (4) MPLJ 610 upheld
by the Apex Court in Tulsi Narayan Garg vs. M.P.Road
Development Authority, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1158.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioners have an
alternate and efficacious remedy available under Clauses 24 and
25 of the tender document/Conditions of Contract. Hence, this
petition is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
7. The Clause 24 and 25 'General Conditions of Contract' of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2569
tender document/Contract reads as under:
''24. Dispute Redressal System
24.1 If any dispute or difference of any kind what-so-ever
shall arise in connection with or arising out of this
Contract or the execution of Works or maintenance of the
Works there under, whether before its commencement or
during the progress of Works or after the termination,
abandonment or breach of Contract, it shall, in the first
instance, be referred for settlement to the competent
authority with 45 days or arising of the dispute or
difference, described along with their powers in the
Contract date, above the rank of the Engineer. The
competent authority shall, within a period of sixty days
after being requested in writing by the Contractor to do
so, convey his decision to the Contractor. Such decision
in respect of every matter so referred shall, subject to
review as hereinafter provided, be final and binding upon
the Contractor. In case the Works is already in progress,
the Contractor shall proceed with the execution of the
Works, including maintenance thereof, pending receipt of
the decision of the competent authority as aforesaid, with
all due diligence.''
25. Arbitration
25.1 Either party will have the right to appeal, against
the decision of the competent authority, nominated under
Clause 24, to the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal
constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham
Adhiniyam, 1983 provided the amount of claim is more
than Rs. 50,000/-.''
8. As per the aforesaid Clause, there is a proper dispute redressal
system constituted by the State for resolution of any dispute
between the parties. It is apparent from the record that the
petitioner, without approaching the competent authority has filed
this writ petition.
9. The Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola
Beverage Private Ltd vs. Union of India and others reported in
(2014) 15 SCC 44, in which it is held that:- "when the statute
provides for statutory appeal, the said remedy is to be availed by
the litigating parties". In Hameed Kunju vs. Nizam (2017) 8 SCC
611, the Apex Court held that any petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India should be dismissed in limine where there is
statutory provision of appeal. In another case Ansal Housing and
Construction Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
(2016) 13 SCC 305, it is held that when there statutory appeal is
provided, then the said remedy has to be availed.
10. Taking into consideration the aforesaid pronouncement of
law, this petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that
Clause 24 and 25 of the Contract stipulates for a dispute redressal
system, therefore, if it all there is any dispute between the parties,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2569
the petitioner is very well entitled to avail remedy under the said
dispute redressal system.
11. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. However,
petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy in accordance with
law, if so advised."
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a case where
the petitioners / contractors have already resorted the remedy of
Departmental Dispute Resolution System before approaching the
Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran, therefore, their interest be
protected by way of interim relief. In a bunch of writ petitions (lead case
Writ Petition No.5573 of 2024) the Division Bench vide order dated
09.01.2025 has granted two weeks' time to approach the concerned
authorities and further directed the same authority to dispose of the
matter within the time bound period and not beyond two months from
the date of the order and till then recovery shall not be effected upon the
petitioners therein.
04. The Court has also relaxed the limitation provided under Clause
24.1 of General Conditions of Contract of the tender document /
Contract. The order dated 09.01.2025 is reproduced below:
"Identical petitions involving same issue have already been
decided vide order dated 22/05/2024 in WP No.13981/2024.
These petitions are also disposed of in similar terms, however,
liberty is granted to the petitioners to take steps to approach
Dispute Redressal Mechanism in view of the order passed in the
said petition or to approach same Court, if any issue has not been
considered by the said Bench.
2. On approach being made by the petitioners within two weeks,
the concerned authorities are directed to dispose of the same
within the time bound period and not beyond two months from the
date of this order.
3. Till then, recovery shall not be effected upon the petitioners.
4. In view of the time granted by this Court, the bar of limitation
contained in Clause 24.1 of General Conditions of Contract of the
tender document/Contract shall not come into the way of the
petitioners.
5. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of."
05. Therefore, by relying on both the aforesaid orders, all the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2569
present writ petitions are disposed of. The orders dated 22.05.2024 and
09.01.2025 (supra) shall apply mutatis mutandis in the present cases
also.
06. Let a photocopy of this order be kept in all the connected cases
also.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Divyansh
