Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 658 (MP)

Kunti Singh v. State of M. P.

2016-08-04

S.K.SETH

body2016
ORDER 1. Secretary, District E-Governance Society, Chhatarpur issued Request For Proposal (RFP) on 17.5.2012 for selection of eligible bidder for establishing operating and maintaining Lok Seva Kendra at Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur. After evaluation of bids, the Secretary had accepted the bid of M/s. Smt. Kunti Singh Gautam and issued Letter of Acceptance on 9.7.2012 (LOA). Pursuant to this, a contract was entered into between the Secretary E-Governance Society on the one part and Smt. Kunti Singh Gautam on the other part. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the contract was for a period of 3 years. Copy of the RFP and the agreement is on record as Annexure P-5 to the writ petition. The LOA is also on record as Annexure P-4. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite successfully running the Lok Seva Kendra, the petitioner was never given any notice regarding deficiency of service and contract was not renewed and a fresh RFP was issued by the respondents on 5.2.2016. Petitioner is, therefore, challenging the order dated 11.2.2016 passed by Collector/Secretary, District E-Governance Society, District Chhatarpur. By the said order, earlier contract granted in favour of the petitioner was terminated and the order further says that the petitioner was found ineligible for renewal of the contract. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed reply and along with the reply they have filed various communication issued to the petitioner to remove various deficiency pointed out there-in during the period of contract. It is specifically denied that no notice was given to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the term of contract for 3 years is over, therefore, the respondents are well within their rights not to renew the contract and issued a fresh RFP. 4. Initially, respondent No.3 Arvind Gupta files an application for intervention pointing out that in pursuance of the fresh RFP, his bid has been accepted for running the Lok Seva Kendra at Rajnagar. He also filed certain more documents along with the application for intervention. However, later on, he has been joined as a respondent in the writ petition and Shri Shrivastava appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that he relying on the documents filed along with the application for intervention as a sufficient and complete answer to the writ petition. 5. He also filed certain more documents along with the application for intervention. However, later on, he has been joined as a respondent in the writ petition and Shri Shrivastava appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that he relying on the documents filed along with the application for intervention as a sufficient and complete answer to the writ petition. 5. Shri Tripathi counsel for the petitioner invited attention to sub-clause (d) and sub-clause (o) of clause 5.1 of RFP to submit that the Secretary, E-Governance Society did not provide necessary trading to operator and his employees. It was also submitted that the Secretary, E-Governance Society failed to provide swan connectivity to the operator at the Lok Seva Kendra and therefore, no blame can be attached to the petitioner and she was fully eligible for renewal of the contract and the order impugned Annexure P-1 is therefore, unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Smt. Bohre appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 invited attention to the documents filed along with the application for taking additional documents on record and especially the notice dated 10.7.2015 issued by the Collector/Secretary, E-Governance Society to the petitioner on the subject of deficiency of service and slack operation of the Lok Seva Kendra. The Lok Seva Kendra, Rajnagar District Chhatarpur was inspected by the Collector and he noticed as under: fujh{k.k ds le; 5]000 vkosnuksa dk caMy j[kk ik;k x;k ftldk vkids }kjk uk gh vkWuykbZu QhfMax dh xbZ uk gh vkifr ls lacaf/kr laLFkkvksa dks okfil fd, x, tks ykijokgh gS] ftlls yksd lsok lsok dsaæksa esa vkonsuksa dh vkWuykbZu QhfMax dk dk;Z izHkkfor jgkA vkids }kjk vf/kd`r lapkyd }kjk crk;k fd vkWuykbZu QhfMax dk dk;Z fnukad 9-7-2015 ls fd;k tkuk gS ftldh O;oLFkk esjs }kjk dh tkdj ftyk izca/kd yksd lsok dks crk, x, dk;ZLFky ij fujh{k.k gsrq Hkstk ftlesa ik;k x;k fd vkids ,d dejs esa nl u;s dEI;wVj j[ks gq, gSa tks vHkh LVksys'ku ugha gq, Fks vkSj vkWuykbZu QhfMax dk dk;Z ugha gks jgk FkkA fnukad 10-7-2015 dks Hkh vkids vkWuykbZu QhfMax dk fujh{k.k fd;k ftlesa vkids ikl izkIr vkosnuksa esa ls 19]908 vkWuykbZu QhfMax gsrq yafcr ik, x,A fnukad 9-7-2015 dks vkids yksd lsok dsaæ }kjk ek= 21 vkosnu gh vkWuykbZu QhYM gksuk ik, x,A 7. Smt. Bohre appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that in view of the various communication issued from time to time to the petitioner, it is clear that deficiency of the service and slackness was writ large in providing the Online facilities to the villagers in remote places for small things like obtaining caste certificate, death certificate etc., without going from village to the District Head Quarter or the State Head Quarter. She, therefore, submits that no interference is called for with Annexure P-1 or Annexure-P 2. 8. Shri Shrivastava, appearing for the respondent No.3 invited attention to clause No.11 of RFP documents/agreement which requires that an application for renewal the operator is required to submit at least 6 months prior to the expiry of agreement an application in writing to show his willingness to continue to operate the Lok Sewa Kendra for a further period of 3 years. His contention is that, no such application for renewal has been filed by the petitioner. In support of this contention, he invited attention to Annexure 8 filed along with his application for intervention. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner having failed to submit a written application in 6 months prior to the date of expiry, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for renewal. He also invited attention to clause No.15 read with clause 15.2 which provides mechanism for dispute resolution, either by amicable settlement or by arbitration by named arbitrator. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner had an adequate, efficacious, alternative remedy hence petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground. 9. After having heard rival submissions at length and having considered material on record, one thing is very clear that it was a pure and simple contract given to the petitioner to run Lok Sewa Kendra at Rajnagar District Chhattarpur. By the said contract, no time was vested in the petition to claim renewal of the contract. It is within the discretion of the employer to renew the contract or issue fresh RFP and petitioner is nobody to question that decision unless it is arbitrary or tainted with mala fide to achieve some hidden agenda. As it is well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier and another v. North-East Frontier Railway and others, reported in (2014)3 SCC 760 . 10. As it is well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier and another v. North-East Frontier Railway and others, reported in (2014)3 SCC 760 . 10. It is not the case of the petitioner that the RFP has been issued with some ulterior motive or to achieve hidden agenda. There is neither pleadings in this regard nor cogent material has been placed. Only submission of Shri Tripathi is that the issuance of fresh RFP is mala fide because respondents had made up their mind before the contract period was over. Except this bald and sweeping assertion, without any supportive material, this plea cannot be accepted, merely, because respondents had decided to issue fresh RFP though the contract period was not over. It does not mean that they are acting with mala fide. 11. As has been said hereinabove the controversy is purely in the realm of contract, therefore, a writ petition in such cases are not maintainable. Consequently, writ petitions are hereby dismissed. Interim order passed in favour of the petitioner stands vacated. 12. Let a copy of this order be retained in the file of Writ Petition No.6068/2016.