Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 29179
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Mrs Surepalli Nanda, J
M/s Sanyu Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondent
W.P. No. 13266 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. L. Ravi Chander, Mrs Srutha Keerthi Mandhata
For the Respondents: Mr K.Arvind Kumar
Procedural due process must be strictly followed in contract termination; violations of natural justice render actions invalid. Adequate notice must be given as per statutory requirements.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional law - Principles of Natural Justice - No adequate opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner before termination of contracts - Communication of termination notices through the online portal was insufficient - Implications of procedural requirements were not complied with, violating statutory provisions. (Paras 10-20)
(B) Judicial review - Authority mandated to reconsider entire issue in accordance with law after directions from the higher court - Non-compliance leading to arbitrary actions renders the decision void. (Paras 11, 12)
(C) Article 226 of the Constitution - The court can entertain writ petitions even in matters of tender disputes where lack of transparency and violation of procedures are evident. (Paras 18-20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the termination of multiple contracts by the respondent authority for failure to commence work as specified in the Letter of Acceptance. The petitioner contended that there was a violation of principles of natural justice as notices were not duly served prior to the termination. The previous orders of a higher court required the authority to reconsider the termination.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order did not adhere to the directions given by the higher court and failed to provide the petitioner appropriate notice as required under the Standard General Conditions of Contract.
Issues: Whether the respondent authority followed due process in terminating the contracts and if the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to respond before the termination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of complying with procedural requirements stipulated in the regulations governing contracts to uphold the principles of natural justice, and the failure to do so invalidates the actions taken against the petitioner.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment context and parties involved (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of earlier judgments and their impact (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. party arguments regarding contract and notices (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court observations on notice and procedural compliance (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. analysis of principles of natural justice and contract regulations (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. legal precedents affirming court's jurisdiction (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
ORDER:
Heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. L. Ravi Chander representing the counsel on record Mrs Srutha Keerthi Mandhata appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr K.Arvind Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4.
2. Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :
“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in Reply No.G/W.148/South/W.A – III, dated 24.04.2023, as contrary to the directions in the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.301 of 2023, dated 10.03.2023 and therefore, set aside the same and consequently, set aside the tender notice Nos.Engg-GTL- South-1379, Engg-GTL-South 1384, Engg-GTL-South- 1382, Engg-GTL-South-1375, Engg-GTL-South-1378, Engg-GTL-South-1381, Engg-GTL-South-1383, Engg- GTL-South-1380, Engg-GTL-South-1376, Engg-GTL- South-1377 – dated 28.04.2023, vide – Guntakal Division :: RU GY Section: for proposed construction of Road Under Bridge (Subway) being illegal, arbitrary, violative and contrary to settled direction in W.A.No.301 of 2023, dated 10.03.2023. PERUSED THE RECORD :
3. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.23748, 23749, 23750, 23751, 23752, 23753, 23754, 23755, 23756, 23757 and 27582 of 2022, in particular, paras 44 and 45, reads as under:
44. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as stated supra, the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions failed to explain irregularity committed by respondents in terminating the contracts. On the other hand, respondent railways established that there was delay on the part of the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions in commencing and completing the work. In W.P.No.27582 of 2022 despite granting six extensions, the petitioner therein failed to complete the work and even he did not complete the work within four years from the date of LOAs. He has completed only 49% of work. In other writ petitions, the petitioner failed to commence work even after 7 months period from the date of LOA.
45. In all the aforesaid contracts, there was delay on the part of the petitioner in furnishing performance bank guarantee. The petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions failed to establish any irregularity either procedural or legal including violation of the procedure laid down under LOA/Contract Agreement and GCC and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief much less relief sought in these writ petitions. Therefore, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
4. The judgment dated 10.03.2023 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.301 of 2023 and in particular, paras 14 to 17, reads as under:
“14. From the above, it is seen that stand taken by the respondents was that all notices were uploaded on IRWCMS i.e., the online platform. Appellant having participated in the tender and after obtaining Letter of Acceptance was supposed to get all agreements, bills, extensions etc., through the aforesaid online portal; it is the responsibility of the appellant to obtain such information.
15. Learned Single Judge observed that the termination notice was placed in the IRWCMS site. Appellant had filed copies of seven (7) days and forty-eight (48) hours notice which were issued prior thereto and therefore, appellant cannot contend that the said notices were not served upon the appellant. Learned Single Judge held that there was no irregularity in terminating the aforesaid contract by the respondents.
16. Before we proceed to dea
