Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Anushka Power Inc vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61419
1 WP-36016-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 27th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 36016 of 2025
M/S ANUSHKA POWER INC
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Eijaz Nazar Siddiqui - Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri H.S. Ruprah - Additional Advocate General and Shri Dr. S.S.
Chauhan - Government Advocate with Shri Akash Malpani - Advocate for
Respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by action of the respondent, whereby by
order dated 11.08.2025 the representation of the petitioner challenging the
order of termination dated 27.06.2025 has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner, being a consortium partner of respondent No. 5, was
awarded the contract vide agreement dated 06.05.2025. However, the said
contract has subsequently been terminated by the impugned order dated
27.06.2025.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61419
2 WP-36016-2025
submits that a contract was awarded pursuant to NIT dated 28.01.2025,
which provides for settlement of disputes through the mode of arbitration.
He further submits that the contract itself stipulates that the agreement is
terminable. Reference is drawn to Clause 4.3.
4. Clause 4.3 reads as under :
4.3. TERMINATION
4.3.1. TERMINATION BY DEFAULT
The competent authority may, without prejudice to any other remedy for
breach of contract, by a written notice of default of at least 30 days sent to
the Service Provider, terminate the contract in whole or in part: -
I. If the Service Provider fails to deliver any or all quantities of the service
within the time period specified in the contract, or any extension thereof
granted by the Department; or
II. If the Service Provider fails to perform any other obligation under the
contract within the specified period of delivery of service or any extension
granted thereof; or
III. If the Service Provider, in the judgment of the Department, is found to
be engaged in corrupt, fraudulent, collusive, or coercive practices in
competing for or in executing the contract.
IV. If the Service Provider commits breach of any condition of the contract.
4.3.2. TERMIINATION OF INSOLVENCY
The Department may at any time terminate the Contract by giving a written notice
of at least 30 days to the Service Provider, if the Service Provider become
bankrupt or otherwise insolvent or unable to perform due to any major change in
the management of the bidder, bidder's bankers refusing to release funds.
Impact Of Termination On Ground Of Default Or Insolvency
If the Department terminates the contract in whole or in part, PBG may be
forfeited and payment for goods already supplied / work already done shall
not be made. Termination will be without compensation to the Service
Provider. Such termination will not prejudice or affect any further right of
action or remedy that has accrued or will accrue thereafter to MP Police.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61419
3 WP-36016-2025
4.3.3. TERMINATION OF CONVENIENCE
M.P. Police by written notice of not less than 90 days sent to the successful
bidder may terminate the Contract, if whole or in part, at any time for its
convenience. The notice of termination shall specify that termination is for
its convenience. In case of termination for convenience, M.P Police would
pay to the bidder cost of goods and services provided till the date of the
termination. The PBG in such a case would be refunded to the successful
bidder.
4.3.3.A . Further the M.P Police shall also have the unfettered right to repudiate and
rescind the Contract by providing 30 days written notice, if there is any breach of the
Contract by the Successful Bidder including but not limited to the occurrence of any of the
following events or contingencies:
I. Performance Bank Guarantee not submitted within the stipulated as mentioned in the
RFP.
II. Performance Bank guarantee not renewed as mentioned in the RFP.
III. Quality of service is found to be grossly substandard or not as per
specifications/agreements or Bidder failing to replace such defective or deficient goods
and services even after giving sufficient notice of the same.
IV. inordinate delay in completion of tasks beyond given time limits.
V. Failure to provide warranty, maintenance or handholding support.
In such a situation same consequence may follow as mentioned at Clause 4.3.2A above.
And It may lead to blacklisting of successful bidder
5. Clause 4.3. provides for termination of contract under different
circumstances inter alia termination by default, termination for insolvency
and termination of convenience. Clearly the parties have agreed that the
contract is terminable. It is settled position of law that there can be no
specific performance of a contract which is terminable in nature. Clause 4.3
clearly shows that the contract is terminable accordingly, there can be no
direction for specific performance of the contract and as such petitioner
cannot seek setting aside of the termination and right to continue performing
the contract. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the termination on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61419
4 WP-36016-2025
ground that same is unlawful or wrongful, it is open to the petitioner to avail
of such remedy as may be permissible in law.
6. Reference may be had to the judgment of Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd. Vs. Bhagwan Balasai Enterprises (1991) 1 SCC 533, wherein the
Supreme Court has held that in respect of a contract which is in nature
determinable, no specific performance is permissible and the only remedy
lies to seek appropriate damages.
7. Since it is a case of the respondent that there is an arbitration clause
in the NIT, it is open to the petitioner to invoke the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Mechanism for redressal of his grievance quo wrongful
termination of contract.
8. In view of the above, petition is disposed of.
9. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented
on the merits of the contention of either parties. All rights and contentions of
the parties are reserved.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Shub
