Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 597 (ALL)

Shiv Shakti Dream Homes Pvt Ltd v. State of U. P.

2024-02-26

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, JAYANT BANERJI

body2024
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Navin Sinha learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. Challenge in the writ petition is to a letter dated 14.02.2024 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Ghaziabad. Ostensibly the letter seeks certain clarification from the petitioner so as to take a decision on his application for extension of a contract. It is contended that earlier the extension was not granted on the ground that another bidder was offering a higher amount for the contract, which order was challenged but subsequently the order itself was withdrawn. 3. It is also contended that this so-called letter asking an explanation is nothing but a roving enquiry to find out a fresh ground for refusing renewal of the contract. The respondents are, by the letter impugned, seeking an admission of wrong doing by the petitioner and that too after six years of installation of the unipoles. No issue of the unipoles being installed at locations other than those specified in the contract, or that they were not of the size specified in the contract are reflected. The object of the respondent is to somehow not extend the petitioner's contract and to award it to someone of their choice. 4. It is also contended that on the earlier occasion the contract was not renewed/extended on the plea that a higher amount was being offered for award of the contract by a third party. Now a new ground of under-performance or unsatisfactory performance of contract is sought to be raised. The respondents are estopped from raising new grounds which were not raised earlier while refusing to renew/extend it. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Galada Power & Telecommunication Limited v. United India Insurance Company Limited & another 2016 (14) SCC 161 especially para No. 13 onward in support of his submission. 6. Sri Navin Sinha has opposed the petition. He has submitted that only some relevant information has been sought from the petitioner to facilitate the respondent in deciding the application for renewal/extension of the contract awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner has no reason to be aggrieved and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. 6. Sri Navin Sinha has opposed the petition. He has submitted that only some relevant information has been sought from the petitioner to facilitate the respondent in deciding the application for renewal/extension of the contract awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner has no reason to be aggrieved and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The submission is that in any case if no explanation is sought and the contract is not renewed/extended it shall enable the petitioner to allege non-adherence to the principles of natural justice. He has also submitted that the Municipal Commissioner has since been replaced. 8. The Court was inclined to call for a counter affidavit. 9. However, at this stage Sri Navin Sinha learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 states that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit. 10. Under the circumstances and since the respondent who has issued the impugned letter does not propose to file any counter affidavit, in our considered opinion the writ petition is liable to be allowed accepting the submissions made by counsel for petitioner. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 12. The letter dated 14.02.2024 is hereby quashed.