The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna opined that in absence of any evidence and material on record and there being disputed questions of facts the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order.
Facts
The appellant (Municipal Council) is running educational institutions/schools. There was a requirement for benches, almirahs and tables in a school run by it. Accordingly, resolution came to be passed. An e-tender was issued by the appellant and bids were invited. Original writ petitioner No.1 participated in the tender and was declared the successful bidder and the same was sanctioned by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council. Thereafter, an Agreement came to be executed between the original writ petitioner No.1 and the appellant and work order came to be issued. In view of the Covid19 and the lockdown in force, the Maharashtra Government published G.R. that nonpriority expenditure like in the present case, should not be incurred. The President of Municipal Council, Gondia informed the Chief Officer that as the Municipal Council was not having any income and most of the schools were closed, no purchases should be made and no proposal for the same should be forwarded. The Chief Officer of the Municipal Council informed the original writ petitioner No.1 that the work order had been suspended until further orders. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that after obtaining the report from the Education Officer the original writ petitioner No.1 had not taken any further steps regarding the work order and having found that since the supply of desks, benches etc., was not urgent in nature during the time of pandemic and considering the G.R., the Municipal Council cancelled the work order till further orders.
Procedural History
Feeling aggrieved respondents No.1 & 2 herein – original writ petitioners preferred a writ petition. By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the action of the Municipal Council and held that original writ petitioner No.1 was entitled to make the supply and consequent to which it is entitled to the payments as per the terms of the work order. Feeling dissatisfied, the Municipal Council has preferred the present appeal. The present appeal was heard by this Court and adjourned to a later date.
Observations of the Court
The Bench referred to various judgments by the Apex Court and observed that:
“In absence of any evidence and material on record and there being disputed questions of facts the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order directing the Council to continue the work order and accept the goods from the original writ petitioner No.1 and to make the payments as per the work order. Even otherwise, no writ of mandamus could have been issued virtually granting the writ for specific performance of the contract/work order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court has not at all appreciated the reasons for suspending/cancelling the work order till further orders. Therefore, the High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the communication in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Judgment
The impugned judgment was set aside. The original writ petition stood dismissed. But this won’t prevent the original writ petitioners from initiating appropriate proceedings before the civil court for the damages/losses, if any suffered by them.
Case Name: Municipal Council Gondia vs Divi Works & Suppliers, HUF & Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Decided on: 28th February 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
