SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Manipur) 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH, J.
Ema Ebema Langol Lairembi Construction, represented by its Proprietor, Shri Khomdram Surendra Kumar Singh, s/o. Shir Khomdram Tombi Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Manipur, represented through the Addl. Chief Secretary (Tribal Affairs & Hills), Government of Manipur and Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 333 of 2022 with WP(C) No. 334 of 2022 with WP(C) No. 335 of 2022 with WP(C) No. 336 of 2022 with WP(C) No. 337 of 2022 with WP(C) No. 338 of 2022 with WP(C) No. 339 of 2022 with WP(C) No. 340 of 2022 with WP(C) No. 341of 2022 with WP(C) No. 342 of 2022
Decided On : 10-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. R.K Deepak, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Vashum, Govt. Adv.

Headnote:(A) The works were awarded on 12-06-2020 under the terms of government regulations, but cancelled on 26-04-2022 due to alleged non-commencement by petitioner; Terms required technical guidance and site selection by authorities, which was neglected - Key legal principle includes acts of authorities deemed arbitrary. (Paras 5, 28, 30)

(B) Authorities must provide valid justification for cancellation; conditions must be strictly interpreted according to the terms of the agreement. (Paras 25, 29)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner awarded ten work orders for infrastructure projects from 12-06-2020 but faced delays due to COVID-19 restrictions and lack of assistance from the authorities, eventually leading to the second cancellation in April 2022. (Paras 3, 5, 9)

Findings of Court:
Cancellation of work orders deemed arbitrary given the authorities' failure to support the petitioner as per contractual obligations and COVID-19 restrictions impacting project initiation. (Paras 23, 28)

Issues: Whether cancellation was justified; the authorities' responsibility for providing guidance and selection of work sites; relevance of pandemic restrictions in execution delay. (Paras 14, 26)

Ratio Decidendi: Court held that the cancellation was unlawful due to arbitrary decision-making, failure of the State to adhere to its obligations, and the lack of valid grounds for cancellation as per the contract terms. (Paras 25, 26)

Result: Petitioner reinstated to continue work under the original contract after the cancellation order was quashed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claims and context of work orders. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. cancellation of work orders and subsequent legal actions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. petitioner's arguments against cancellation and justifications. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. court's reasoning regarding cancellation of work orders. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. analysis of authorities' actions and new grounds in counter affidavit. (Para 28 , 29)
6. court's decision to quash orders and allow petitioner to execute works. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT :

(Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J.) :

Heard Dr. R.K Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Vashum, learned GA appearing for the respondents.

[2] The present ten writ petitions had been filed with the prayer, inter alia, for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 26-04-2022, which cancelled the work orders dated 12-06-2020 issued in favor of the petitioner, as well as for quashing and setting aside the fresh NITs dated 11-05-2022 and also for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to commence the contract work by re-scheduling the date of commencement of the work.

As the facts and issues involved in the ten writ petitions are the same, all the writ petitions were heard jointly and being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

[3] The petitioner is a registered special class contractor in the department of Tribal Affairs & Hills, Government of Manipur. The case of the petitioner is that with a view to enhance infrastructure development in the hills district of Manipur, the State Cabinet took a decision in its meeting held on 12-10-2019 to adopt restricted tender for the contract work of infrastructure development of 3 (three) Eklavya Model Residential School (EMRS) at Moreh, Tamenglong & Gamnom, Sapermaina. Pursuant to the said Cabinet decision, the Under Secretary (Tribal Affairs & Hills), Government of Manipur sent a proposal to the Director, Tribal Affairs & Hills, Govt. of Manipur to adopt restricted tender in respect of the contract works for infrastructure development for the said three EMRS where estimated cost of each work is less than 1.5 crore, vide letter dated 25-10-2019. After obtaining the approval of the Government, the Executive Engineer, Tribal Affairs & Hills, Government of Manipur issued three separate notices bearing numbers 2, 3 & 4, all dated 10-02-2020 inviting restricted sealed tender from intending approved and eligible registered contractors of the department for execution of the works mentioned in the said NITs.

[4] The petitioner submitted bids in respect of 10 (ten) works and having found to be the lowest bidder and having fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the tender, the petitioner was awarded the following works by issuing ten separate work orders all dated 12-06-2020 issued by the Executive Engineer-II, Tribal Affairs & Hills, Manipur :-

    (a) Eklavya Model Residential School, Tamenglong :

    (i) Renovation of school building;

    (ii) Renovation of hostel building Block – A and construction of toilet block and septic tank;

    (iii) Renovation of hostel building Block – B and construction of toilet block and septic tank; and

    (iv) Construction and Science Block i/c internal electrification

    (b) Eklavya Model Residential School, Moreh, Tengnoupal:

    (i) Construction of Science Block;

    (ii) Construction of four numbers of Staff quarters Block – A; and

    (iii) Construction of four numbers of Staff quarters Block - B

    (c) Eklavya Model Residential School, Gamnom, Sapermaina:

    (i) Construction of Science Block;

    (ii) Construction of hostel building Block – A; and

    (iii) Construction of hostel building Block – B.

As per the said work orders, the time allowed for executing the work was given as 12 (twelve) months and the following terms and conditions were also given:-

    Terms and Condition

    1. You are requested to attend the office of the undersigned to complete the Agreement and other formalities within 7 days from the issue of the letter.

    2. The date of start of the w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top