Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1322/2021 on 21 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 1322 OF 2021
21ST JUNE, 2023
Between:
Govind Singh Mahant ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Bhatia, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondent : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing
Counsel for the State /
respondents
: Mr. D.N. Sharma and Ms. Manju
Bahuguna, learned counsels for
intervener
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition, firstly, to assail the cancellation of contract vide
letter No. 1856/56M-6/21, dated 10.05.2021. The
petitioner also assails the fresh NIT issued by the
respondent vide notification dated 26.06.2021. Other
consequential reliefs have also been sought by the
petitioner.
2
2) The petitioner had participated in the NIT
issued by the respondent No. 3 on 08.12.2020 for
reconstruction of road in Bhatwari area of Gangotri
region of Uttarkashi from Hina to Hina village, and
emerged as the successful bidder. The respondents
issued an acceptance letter on 09.03.2021 to the
petitioner. The same reads as follows :
"You are hereby informed that your tender for
the above noted work has been accepted by the under
signed for Rs.91,60,811.83 +10,99,297.42 (GST) =
Rs.1,02,60,109.25 (One Crore Two lac sixty thousand
one hundred nine and twenty five paisa only) at your
Tendered rates on behalf of he Government of
Uttarakhand as per Approved by tender committee.
You are therefore requested to deposit a sum of
Rs.6,65,026.78 (Six lac Sixty five thousand Twenty six
and Seventy eight paisa only) as performance security
and Rs.41,30,700.00 (Forty One lac thirty thousand
seven hundred) as additional performance security,
Total Rs.47,95,726.78 (forty seven lac ninty five
thousand Seven hundred Twenty six and seventy eight
paisa only) as Security deposit in the form of N.S.C. /
F.D.R. from a Nationalized Bank duly pledged in favour
of Executive Engineer P.D. P.W.D. Bhatwari and to
attend the office of Executive Engineer P.D. P.W.D.
Bhatwari to sign your contract papers within Seven
days of receipt of the letter, failing which the
acceptance of tender shall be withdrawn & Earnest
Money will be forfeited in favour of Government."
3) The case of the petitioner is that this
communication was not received by the petitioner
3
within a reasonable time, and that it was received on
22.03.2021. The further case of the petitioner is that
the petitioner sought to comply with the conditions
contained in the letter dated 09.03.2021, but he was
not permitted to do so by the respondents
themselves. The petitioner states that without
communicating the cancellation of the tender to the
petitioner, the respondents proceeded to invite a
fresh tender on 26.06.2021. Only thereafter, the
petitioner learnt that the contract awarded to the
petitioner was cancelled on 10.05.2021.
4) The petitioner has placed on record, the
cancellation letter dated 10.05.2021, as Annexure 10.
The same reads as follows :
"i=kad&1856/56M-6/2 fnukad 10@5@2021
dk;kZy; Kki
ek0 eq[;ea=h th dh ?kks"k.kk la0 526@2015 ds vUrxZr tuin mRrjdk'kh ds
fo/kkulHkk {ks= xaxks=h ds vUrxZr HkVokM+h esa ghuk ls ghuk xkao rd lEidZ ekxZ fuekZ.k dk;Z dh
fufonk bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 1131@56,e0&06@2021 fnukad 9-03-2021 }kjk izFke U;wure
fufonknkrk Jh xksfcUn flag egUr xzke o iks0vks0 fVijh rglhy fpU;kyhlkSM+ ftyk mRrjdk'kh
ds uke :0 91]60]811-83 $ 10]99]297-42 ¾ :0 1]02]60]109-25 ek= ¼12 izfr'kr th0,l0Vh0
lfgr½ ds fy, Lohd`r dh xbZ FkhA U;wure fufonknkrk Jh xksfcUn flag egUr dks v/kksgLrk{kjh
ds i=kad 1131@56,e0&06@2021 fnukad 9-03-2021 }kjk ijQkjesUl flD;ksfjVh ds :i esa :0
6]65]026-78 ,oa ,fM'kuy flD;ksfjVh ds :i esa :0 41]30]700-00 dqy :0 47]95]726-78 ek= dh
/kjksgj /kujkf'k ,u0,l0lh0@,Q0Mh0vkj0 ds :i esa tks fd vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk izkUrh; [k.M
yks0fu0fo0 HkVokM+h ds uke cU/kd gks] tek djus ,oa fufonk Lohd`fr dk i= izkfIr ds mijkUr
,d lIrkg ds vUnj vuqcU/k ij gLrk{kj djus gsrq vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk izkUrh; [k.M yks0fu0fo0
4
HkVokM+h ds dk;kZy; esa lEidZ djus gsrq fy[kk x;k FkkA budks ckj&ckj nwjHkk"k ls Hkh lwfpr
fd;k x;k A ijUrq Bsdsnkj }kjk ijQkjesUl flD;ksfjVh] ,fM'kuy flD;ksfjVh vkfrfFk rd tek
u djus ds dkj.k fufonk ijke'kZ lfefr ds ijke'kZ ds vk/kkj ij bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad
1131@56,e0&06@2021 fnukad 9-03-2021 }kjk fufonkrk dks nh x;h fufonk dh Lohd`fr
fujLr dj] okil yh tkrh gS ,oa fufonknkrk }kjk fufonk esa yxkbZ xbZ /kjksgj /kujkf'k :0
2]70]000-00 esa ls :0 2]66]000-00 dks jktdh; fgr esa tCr djus ds vkns'k ,rn~}kjk ikfjr
fd;s tkrs gSaA
v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk]
6okW o`Rr] yks0fu0fo0] mRrjdk'khA
izfrfyfi %& vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk] izkUrh; [k.M yks0fu0fo0] HkVokM+h dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izsf"kr
fd mijksDr fufonknkrk }kjk fufonk esa yxkbZ x;h /kjksgj /kujkf'k ¼mRrjk[k.M
xzkeh.k cSad fpU;kyhlkSM+] mRrjdk'kh½ STDR/UGB/2016 324561 fnukad 28-12-
2020 :0 2]70]000-00 esa ls :0 2]66]000-00 dks jktdh; fgr esa tCr djuk
lqfuf'pr djsaA
izfrfyfi %& Jh xksfcUn flag egUr xzke o iks0vks0 fpU;kyhlkSM+ ftyk mRrjdk'kh dks lwpukFkZ
izsf"krA
v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk]
6okW o`Rr] yks0fu0fo0] mRrjdk'khA"
5) In the aforesaid background, it would be
seen that there are disputed questions of fact, which
arise for consideration with regard to the cancellation
of the work order issued to the petitioner. The issue :
whether the cancellation of the said work order was
legally justified or not, and even if it was not legally
justified, what rights which accrued to the petitioner,
are issues which can only be determined in civil
proceedings. We are, therefore, not inclined to
entertain the present writ petition.
6) So far as the challenge to the fresh bidding
process initiated on 26.06.2021 is concerned, since
5
the work order issued to the petitioner was admittedly
cancelled on 10.05.2021, the respondents cannot be
restrained from proceeding to initiate a fresh tender
process for execution of the said public work. We are,
therefore, not inclined to grant any relief in that
regard, as well.
7) We, therefore, dismiss the present petition,
leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his civil
remedies in appropriate proceedings. No order as to
costs.
8) During the pendency of the writ petition,
there was an interim stay granted in respect of the
fresh tender process. The fresh tender was invited,
as noticed above, way back on 26.06.2021. The
respondents should, therefore, examine the feasibility
of proceedings with the said tender process, at this
stage.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Dt: 21st JUNE, 2023
Negi
