Sms Limited vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7724 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 550/2021

Sms Limited, Through Its Authorised Signatory Address Villa No.
732, Omaxe City, Ajmer Road, Jaipur- 302 026
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.     State    Of   Rajasthan,         Through         The      Additional   Chief
       Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department (Phed),
       Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.     Chief    Engineer       (Rural),        Public      Health      Engineering
       Department (Phed), Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
3.     Chief Chemist, Public Health Engineering Department
       (Phed), Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
4.     Chairman And Chief Engineer (Special Project), Water
       Sanitation     Support         Organization          State     Water     And
       Sanitation    Mission       Rajasthan          Address       Esti   Building,
       Sansthan Path, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur Rajasthan.
5.     Director, Water Sanitation Support Organization State
       Water And Sanitation Mission Rajasthan Address Esti
       Building,     Sansthan         Path,      Jhalana         Doongri,     Jaipur
       Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shovit Jhajharia and Mr. Ayush Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Judgment

16/12/2021

This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the

judgment of learned Single Judge dated 03.05.2021.

(2 of 3) [SAW-550/2021]

Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner-company was

awarded a contract by the State authorities for setting up of Block

Level Water Testing Laboratories. According to the official

respondents there was substantial delay beyond the contractual

period in setting up such laboratories. After internal

correspondence and certain tentative decisions arrived at by the

authorities of Water and Sanitation Support Organization (State

Water and Sanitization Mission, Rajasthan). The Secretary Public

Health and Engineering Department ordered termination of the

contract of the petitioner and desired that further procedure may

be carried out. This order the petitioner challenged before the

learned Single Judge. One of the main grounds raised in the

petition and argued before the learned Single Judge was that the

impugned order was passed without affording opportunity of being

heard to the petitioner. Since the order resulted in adverse civil

consequences such decision had to be rendered after hearing the

petitioner. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by

impugned judgment inter alia holding that relations between the

petitioner-contractor and the department being purely contractual

in nature principles of natural justice have no rule to play. It was

observed that scope of principles of natural justice and right of

hearing in relation to a particular contract are not available to a

contractor and the rights of the contractor only flow from the

terms of the contract.

We are prepared to proceed on the basis that these

observations of the learned Single Judge are not accurate in law.

The State agencies and authorities even in contractual relations

are bound by the equality clause flowing from Article 14 of the

Constitution. The decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ajay

(3 of 3) [SAW-550/2021]

Hasia and Ors. Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors.,

reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 is sufficient for reference.

However in the facts of the present case we are not inclined to

entertain the appeal and resultantly the writ petition for the

following reasons:-

(i) The record would suggest that the project was a timeline

project and there was a considerable delay in execution of the

project. Who was responsible for such delay would be highly

disputed question of fact. When the authorities therefore have

decided to terminate the contract and award the contract to a new

agency, any interference at this stage would further delay in

execution of an important project.

(ii) The option for the petitioner therefore would be to file a civil

suit and establish the factual basis and seek appropriate relief

before the civil court. If the petitioner chooses to exercise such

right, the question of limitation would be seen from the angle of

the petitioner prosecuting bonafide its relief before another court.

(iii) The observations of the learned Single Judge with respect to

the petitioner's right of hearing as well as touching the merits of

the impugned decisions of the authority would not be taken into

consideration while deciding any proceedings that may be

instituted.

With these observations appeal is disposed of.

                                   (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J                                              (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   KAMLESH KUMAR'/N.GANHDI/1









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)