Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.13 20:20:06 +0530

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek for the following relief(s):

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned order Annexure P-1, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash the order impugned Annexure P-1 dated 09/10.04.2020 passed by the respondent No.1.

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.64,02,397-11 ps. along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of issuance of work order i.e. 17.08.2014 till the date of actual release.

10.4 Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

10.5 Cost of the petition.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 09/10.04.2020, whereby the respondent imposed a recovery of Rs.6,06,13,763.96. The respondent had floated a tender on 28.01.2014, and the petitioner, being the successful bidder, was awarded the work. Although the petitioner commenced the work and had already deposited the requisite earnest money, bank guarantee, and performance security, no formal agreement was executed between the parties. Subsequently, disputes arose, leading to termination of the petitioner’s work, and the respondent re-tendered parts of the same work at the petitioner’s risk and cost. The petitioner contends that the impugned recovery order is arbitrary and illegal, as it was passed without properly considering the petitioner’s objections and in violation of earlier court directions requiring a reasoned (speaking) order. It is further alleged that the recovery has been calculated by invoking contractual clauses, including Clause 9.2(b) of the general terms and conditions, which were not in existence at the time of the tender, thereby resulting in unjust and double penalization. The petitioner also alleges mala fide conduct on the part of the respondent, highlighting that multiple tenders for the same work were issued shortly after awarding it to the petitioner, and that the respondent failed to execute the agreement despite the petitioner’s readiness. It is argued that in the absence of a formal agreement, the respondent could not impose such a substantial recovery and was at best entitled to forfeit the earnest money. Aggrieved by these actions, the petitioner has approached the Court seeking quashing of the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 09/10.04.2020 is wholly unsustainable in law, being arbitrary, unreasoned, and in direct violation of the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.338/2017. The Court had categorically directed the respondents to explain the accounts, consider the petitioner’s objections, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order. However, the respondents have failed to deal with the petitioner’s objections and have passed the impugned order without assigning any reasons, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. On this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that the very basis of the recovery is erroneous and contrary to the contractual terms. The respondents have invoked Clause 9.2(b) of the general terms and conditions, which admittedly did not exist at the time of issuance of the tender, and have simultaneously applied Clause 9.6 of the same, resulting in impermissible double penalization. The calculation of the recovery amount is arbitrary and inflated, including unjustified