[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Sikkim High Court
Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs State Of Sikkim And Ano on 10 December, 2025
Author: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
Bench: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISION BENCH: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Com. A. No. 1 of 2025
Nil Kumar Pradhan,
S/o Late Ratna Kumar Pradhan,
Resident of Jitlang,
Central Pandem,
P.O. Duga,
Sikkim. ..... Appellant
versus
1. State of Sikkim,
Through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Sikkim.
2. Secretary,
Roads and Bridges Department,
Government of Sikkim,
Gangtok. ..... Respondents
Appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. D.K. Siwakoti, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the Appellant.
Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Thinlay
Dorjee Bhutia, Government Advocate for the Respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and
Com. A. No. 2 of 2025
Dil Bahadur Pradhan,
S/o Late Dhan Bahadur Pradhan,
Resident of Jitlang,
Central Pandem,
P.O. Duga, P.S. Rangpo,
Sikkim. ..... Appellant
versus
1. State of Sikkim,
Through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Sikkim,
Gangtok.
2
Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
2. Roads and Bridges Department,
Through the Secretary,
Government of Sikkim,
Gangtok, Sikkim. ..... Respondents
Appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. D.K. Siwakoti, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the Appellant.
Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Thinlay
Dorjee Bhutia, Government Advocate for the Respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing : 28.10.2025 & 06.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 10.12.2025
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
This judgment shall dispose of two connected
Commercial Appeals, i.e., Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 and Com.
A. No. 2 of 2025, as they raise identical issues. In both the
Commercial Appeals, the appellants filed identical suits for
compensation under section 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 read with section 21 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963, seeking compensation of Rs.20,49,576.52 each.
Commercial Suit No.1 of 2024 related to a Notice Inviting
Tender (NIT) for construction of road from Rangpo-Duga to
Lower Jitlang in East Sikkim. Commercial Suit No.2 of 2024
related to a NIT for construction of road from Bhutia
Turning to Sitey Jitlang in East Sikkim.
Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
2. In both the Commercial Suits, the appellants had
participated in the tender process, quoted 16 per cent above
the estimated amount and declared successful bidders.
Pursuant thereto, work orders dated 24.12.2018 were issued
to them by the respondent no.2, i.e, the Roads and Bridges
Department.
3. The work orders stated, "The
Government/Competent authority has approved to award the
work to you at 16% (ABOVE) rate on the value of work. Hence,
you are hereby directed to contact the undersigned for
entering into an agreement and for further instructions for
commencement of the work within 15 (Fifteen) days from the
issue of this work order, failing which the work order shall be
cancelled and the Security Deposit shall be forfeited. The
stipulated time period for completion of work shall commence
from the 15th days (sic) of the date of issue of this work
order."
4. Admittedly, the appellants did not enter into any
agreements as stipulated in the work order. Instead, the
appellants entered into equipment rental agreements with
one Khaling Enterprise for hiring JCB140/JCB Black
Loader/JCB 205/Breaker/Bucket and Tipper for carrying
out construction activities. According to the appellants, the
Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
major portion of the area where proposed road had to be
constructed fell within the forest land and so they requested
the Roads and Bridges Department to hand over the site
without any hinderence.
5. On 24.12.2018 (in Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024)
and 26.12.2018 (in Commercial Suit No. 2 of 2024), the
Roads and Bridges Department requested the Forest
Department for deputation of field officers for joint
inspection for assessment and marking of trees. The
appellants thereafter approached the Office of the Forest
Department and Land Revenue Departments after which
joint inspections were conducted which revealed further
impediments. According to the appellants, they tried
resolving these impediments pursuing various Government
Departments by writing representations and visiting the
officers. Both the appellants made the last of such
representations to the Roads and Bridges Department on
14.07.2020. According to the appellants, because of the
delay in providing the site for construction of the road they
sufferred losses to the extent of the compensation sought.
6. The learned Commercial Court framed four
identical issues in the commercial suits and examined each
of them based on the evidence led. The learned Commercial
Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
Court was of the view that though the appellants had
succeeded in the NIT and work orders issued to them, they
had admittedly failed to enter into the agreements as
stipulated in the work orders as well as in the Sikkim Public
Works Manual, 2009. It was, therefore held that the work
orders did not culminate into agreements. The learned
Commercial Court was of the view that:-
(i) the NIT floated by the Roads and Bridges Department
were the invitations of offers by which the eligible
contractors were required to quote their prices for
construction of the concerned roads;
(ii) the rates quoted by the appellants were accepted
conditionally by the Roads & Bridges Department;
(iii) for acceptance to be complete, the appellants were
required to contact the concerned Assistant Engineer
within fifteen days for execution of the agreements and
obtain further instructions for commencement of the
work which they did not;
(iv) the work orders stipulated that in the event the
appellants failed to execute the agreement and obtain
further instructions for commencement of the work, the
work orders shall be cancelled and security deposit
forfeited.
Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
(v) when offer and acceptance is incomplete, a valid
contract cannot come into operation and consequently
the work order cannot be treated as a valid contract.
7. The learned Commercial Court, therefore, held the
first issue against the appellants concluding that the
appellants and the Roads and Bridges Department had not
entered into any agreement for construction of the roads.
8. The second issue examined by the learned
Commercial Court was whether the failure to pay
compensation to the Forest Departmnt led to the non-
execution of the road construction work. It was held that
permission of the Forest Department was essential for
commencement of construction inside the reserve forest.
However, as there was no valid contract or agreement
between the parties, obtaining NOC from the Forest
Department was inconsequential. Resultantly, the second
issue was also held against the appellants.
9. The third issue was whether the appellants had
suffered a loss of Rs.20,49,576.52 each, due to non-
execution of the construction of roads and whether the
Roads and Bridges Department was liable to pay the same
with pendente lite and further interest. The learned
Commercial Court held that the evidence supported the
Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
appellants' statement that they had hired equipments and
machinery from Khaling Enterprise and had made payment
of rupees five lakhs as advance to them. However, it was
held that the appellants could not expect the Roads and
Bridges Department to compensate them as there was no
valid contract between them. It was held that the actions
taken by the appellants were at their own risk and it could
not be attributed to the Roads and Bridges Department. The
learned Commercial Court held that the appellants ought to
have obtained designs, drawings, Detailed Project Report
(DPR) and other detailed instructions from the Roads and
Bridges Department before hiring equipments and
machinery and making other expenditures. Accordingly, the
commercial suits were dismissed by judgments dated
27.12.2024.
10. After having heard the learned Counsel for the
parties, we are of the view that the judgments passed by the
learned Commercial Court are well reasoned. The facts have
not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellants.
He reiterated the same submissions made before the learned
Commercial Court. The facts ascertained through the
process of trial can result in the same conclusion as made
by the learned Commercial Court.
Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another
11. Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 invoked
by the appellants relates to the power of the Courts to award
compensation only in certain cases when compensation is
sought for in addition to the prayer for specific performance
of a contract. Although, the appellants have sought for
compensation they have not sought for any specific
performance of any contract in their plaints. This was
impermissible. As the learned Commercial Court has held
that there was no contract between the appellants and the
respondents herein, the question of specific performance
would not arise and resultantly, no compensation could be
awarded under section 21. The learned Commercial Court
has correctly dismissed the suits of the appellant.
12. Accordingly, both the Commercial Appeals are
liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. The
records of the learned Commercial Court be remitted
forthwith. No order as to costs.
(Bhaskar Raj Pradhan) (Biswanath Somadder)
Judge Chief Justice
Approved for reporting: Yes
Internet: Yes
bp
