Back
2021 Supreme(Guj) 478
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M. CHHAYA, NIRZAR S. DESAI, JJ.
Shri Rajendrabhai Virjalalbhai Vibhakar – Petitioner
Versus
Vadodara Municipal Corporation – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 9885 of 2019, Civil Application (for Stay) No. 1 of 2020
Decided On : 28-07-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shalin Mehta, Mr. Arjun R. Sheth.
For the Respondent: Mr. Nilesh A. Pandya.
Point of Law: Determination of the core issue would require leading of evidence, which we cannot do in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but at the same time, after almost more than two years, after the petition is filed, if the parties are relegated to any alternative remedy, that also would affect both the parties adversely, in terms of time, that it may consume and in respect of burden of cost of litigation on public exchequer.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Quash - Pooja Construction Company - Case of petitioner that petitioner is a proprietor of Pooja Construction Company and is registered government approved contractor with Executive Engineer R&B District Division Rajkot- company of petitioner is an Certified Company and is engaged in business as engineers and contractors and is also carrying business of designing construction and operation and maintenance of water supply projects like water treatment plants sewage treatment plants various Regional Water supply schemes piping and pumping machinery etc since last and carrying per day treatment of water for various public sector undertakings
Finding of the Court : Petitioner and taking into account hardship that would be caused to petitioner in respect of on going work with various corporations including first respondent-Vadodara Municipal Corporation made cclear that debarment/blacklisting would have only prospective effect and would not affect on-going contracts given to petitioner Court protected petitioner in respect of on-going contracts and order was made operational and applicable only prospectively and therefore court deem it appropriate to clarify that though today we are quashing order of termination effect of same would be from today only and interregnum period till today contract may be treated as terminated but same will not cast any stigma upon petitioner- Hence court pass following order Municipal Corporation (VMC) is hereby quashed and set aside however interregnum period from till today shall be treated as period of debarment of petitioner from respondent Vadodara Municipal Corporation but with a clarification that such debarment shall not disqualify present petitioner from applying any further contracts nor shall it cast any stigma upon petitioner
Result: Petition disposed
JUDGMENT :
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
1. This Court vide order dated 11.07.2019 had issued Rule and made it returnable on 12.09.2019. Today, since both the parties agreed to go on with the matter, the matter is taken-up for final hearing.
2. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arjun R. Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nilesh A. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1-Vadodara Municipal Corporation (for short ‘VMC’).
3. Initially, when the petition was filed, the petitioner had prayed for the following relief:
“(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit present petition.
(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the Resolution No. 06/2019-20 dated 27.05.2019 qua debarring the Petitioner for 10 years from work of VMC.
(c) Pending the admission and final hearing of the present Petition, your Lordships may be pleased to by way of interim relief restrain the respondents and their men, agents, servants and subordinates from implementing the Resolution No. 06/2019-20 dated 27.05.2019 qua debarring the Petitioner for 10 years from work of VMC.
(d) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case be granted.”
4. Thereafter, this Court had heard the learned advocates for the parties for the purpose of interim relief and vide order dated 11.07.2019, refused to grant the interim relief and disposed of the Civil Application (for stay) No. 1 of 2019.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred Civil Application No. 3 of 2019 for amendment, wherein, vide order dated 10.12.2019, the Civil Application for amendment was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to amend the petition. Accordingly, the petitioner amended the petition by modifying the prayers and after amending the prayers, the relief claimed by the petitioner reads as under:
(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit present petition.
(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the Resolution No. 06/2019-20 dated 27.05.2019.
(bb) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner as operation and maintenance contractor of the Water Treatment Plant at Nimeta as per the terms and conditions of the tender contract (Annexure A) and work order dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure D).
(c) Pending the admission and final hearing of the present Petition, your Lordships may be pleased to by way of interim relief restrain the respondents and their men, agents, servants and subordinates from implementing the Resolution No. 06/2019-20 dated 27.05.2019.
(d) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case be granted.
6. Now in view of the aforesaid backdrop, the facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:
6.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a proprietor of Pooja Construction Company and is registered government approved contractor with Executive Engineer R&B District Division, Rajkot. The company of the petitioner is an ISO 2900:2008 & OHSAS 18001:2007 Certified Company and is engaged in the business as engineers and contractors and is also carrying the business of designing, construction and operation and maintenance of water supply projects, like water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, various Regional Water supply schemes, piping and pumping machinery, etc. since last 25 yrs. and carrying 200 crores Ltrs. (2000 MLD) per day treatment of water for various public sector undertakings.
6.2. The respondent No. 2 herein invited tender for operation and maintenance of 45 MLD, 50 MLD (OLD) and 50 MLD (NEW) water treatment plant at Nimeta on annual rate contract basis. The estimated cost f
