Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6152/2007 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6152 of 2007
=========================================================
ANKUR
BUILDERS THRO.POA PATEL RAMESHCHANDRA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT REPRESENTATED BY CHIEF & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HK PARMAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR.ALPESH H PARMAR for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK
SHAH, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED
BY DS for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 01/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner herein has prayed to quash and set aside the final
termination notice passed vide letter No. AB1/893 dated 09.02.2007
and intimated vide letter dated AB1/1303 dated 22.02.2007 by
Executive Engineer.
2. Public
tenders were invited by the competent authority of the respondents
from the contractors for the work of a bridge across river Sukhbhadar
on Vinchhiya-Ori-Hadmatia-Chhasia-Ajmer Road and the petitioner
submitted its tender offer and petitioner’s tender being lowest was
accepted by the respondents. The respondent no. 2 terminated the
contract vide his order no. AB1/1303 dated 22.02.2007 and also
ordered for keeping registration in abeyance for a period of three
years and proposed action against the petitioner. It is the case of
the petitioner that before passing the order, the Executive Engineer
issued notice no. AB1/983 dated 09.02.2007 in which nothing is
mentioned about keeping the registration in abeyance. Being
aggrieved by the said action of termination, this petition is
preferred.
3. Mr.
Alpesh Parmar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner tried to complete the work as far as
possible within the stipulated period, but due to default on the part
of the respondents, the work was not completed within the time limit.
He has submitted that the present contract creates a bilateral and
reciprocal contractual obligation but in this case the department
itself has failed to perform their reciprocal contractual obligation
mentioned as per Schedule B.
4. Mr.
J.K. Shah has drawn the attention of this court to the affidavit in
reply on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and submitted that the
petitioner had remained negligent in performance of his part of the
obligation which by nature of the contract is to be performed first.
5. This
court has heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the
papers on record, more particularly the affidavit in reply wherefrom
it is borne out that the petitioner was given enough opportunity to
carry out the execution of the work entrusted to him under the
contract entered into. It also appears that the petitioner has not
yet been blacklisted. Inspite of several reminders to the petitioner
he has not resumed the work. Considering the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the stand
taken by the respondent authority is just and proper and does not
call for any interference as it would not be appropriate for this
court to substitute the opinion of the authority at this stage.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, petition stands dismissed. The petitioner has
prayed for damages which in the opinion of this court is subject to
arbitration proceedings and therefore the petitioner may file
arbitration proceedings for seeking damages if not filed so far. Rule
is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top