Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1184020/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11840 of 2008
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11841 of 2008
=============================================
SURESHBHAI
DAYARAMBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance
:
MR
MURALI N DEVNANI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR.VARUN K.PATEL for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 23/10/2008
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH)
What
is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
is the decision of respondent No.1 Gujarat State Civil Supplies
Corporation issuing advertisement for inviting fresh contract for the
labour work at the godowns of the Corporation in Porbandar District.
2. The
petitioners were awarded the labour contracts for the godowns in
Porbandar District for the period upto 31.03.2008 at the rates
specified in the contract. The contract period was thereafter
extended from 01.04.2008 upto 31.03.2009 by order dated 7.3.2008
followed by the agreements granting such extension at the same rates
at which the contracts were awarded for the period upto 31.03.2009.
3. The
petitioners were also informed by communication dated 17.09.2008
(Annexure-I to the reply affidavit) that since fresh tenders are
invited, the contract with the petitioners will continue till the
appointment of the contractors under the new tender process.
4. The
petitioners contend in this petition that once the extension was
granted in favour of the petitioners upto 31.03.2009, it was not open
to the respondent Corporation to curtail the period of contract. Mr
Raval for the petitioners states that the petitioners are ready to
continue to render their services at the same rates at which the
petitioners were awarded the contract for the period upto 31.03.2009.
Therefore, there will be no loss to the respondent Corporation if
the petitioners are continued till 31.03.2009 or thereafter.
5. On
the other hand, Mr KM Patel, learned counsel for the respondent
Corporation relies on Clause No.22 of the extension agreements and
submits that even while granting the extension upto 31.03.2009, it
was made clear that it would be open to the Corporation to put an end
to the contract without giving any compensation to the petitioners.
6. In
rejoinder, Mr Dharmesh Devnani for Mr Murli N Devnani states that the
petitioners are ready to provide the limited services to the
respondent Corporation at the same rate at which the contract was
awarded to the petitioners for the period upto 31.3.2008 and at which
rate the petitioners were given extension upto 31.3.2009.
7. Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in
the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate for
the petitioners to make a suitable representation to the respondent
Corporation within 15 days from today and thereupon, the Corporation
shall take appropriate decision having regard to the larger public
interest, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the
representation.
8. The
petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Ad-interim
relief granted earlier stands vacated.
(M.S.
SHAH, J.)
(HARSHA
DEVANI, J.)
zgs/-
Top