Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1334 (ALL)

Maha Shakti Traders v. State of U. P.

2025-11-17

AMITABH KUMAR RAI, SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2025
JUDGMENT : AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Saumya Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Dutt Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order and judgment dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Respondent No. 2 so far as it concerns the Petitioner No. 1, being arbitrary, whimsical and bad in law; (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 59,62,135/- for the tender work of Sewer Construction (Nala Nirman) from Soron Gate Police Chowki to Allahnoor Saifi's Shop to the petitioners; (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 2,22,000/- for the tender work of supply of clamps with nut bolt to the petitioners;" 3. The brief facts of the case are that tenders were invited by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Kasganj for 41 categories of works vide tender notification dated 4.8.2015. The petitioner’s firm in furtherance of the tender notification submitted bid for two tenders, one for construction of sewerage from Soron Gate Police Chowki to Allahnoor Saifi's Shop with bid amount of Rs.59,62,135/-. The bid of the petitioner’s firm was lowest, hence tender committee recommended for award of tender to the petitioner’s firm on 19.8.2015 which was accepted and the work order was issued. The petitioner’s firm also submitted bid for supply of clamps with nut bolts which was also accepted in favour of the petitioner’s firm. As per the tender invitation notice dated 4.8.2015, the work of sewerage construction was to be completed within two months and the supply of clamp was to be made within 15 days of the award of the tender. The supply order was issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kashganj for supply of the clamp along with nut bolts which is annexed at Page No. 47 of the writ petition and furtherance thereof petitioner’s firm supplied the quantity of clamps with nut bolts which was duly acknowledged and the receipt of such acknowledgment are collectively annexed as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. 4. 4. The acknowledgment indicates that the supply of the clamp along with nut bolts were made between the period 3.11.2015 to 24.11.2015. In the meantime, it seems that some complaint was made by one of the contractor which was inquired upon by the Additional District Magistrate, Kasganj who submitted its report dated 29.12.2015 and on the basis of the said inquiry report, order dated 20.1.2016 was passed by the District Magistrate, Kasganj cancelling the tender invitation notice dated 4.8.2015. In the meantime, the petitioner’s firm has already supplied the clamp along with nut bolts in reference to the tender invitation notice dated 4.8.2015 amounting to Rs.2,22,000/- and has also completed the construction of the sewerage up to 85 to 90 per cent. 5. It seems that thereafter a fresh tender notice was issued inviting tender with respect to the works which were also part of the notice inviting tender dated 4.8.2015, out of which many works already stood completed, hence a complaint was made and the Additional District Magistrate, Kasganj. In charge (Local Bodies) instituted inquiry vide letter dated 10.3.2016 by a team comprising of Tehsildar (Judicial), Kasganj, Executive Officer P.W.D., Kasganj, Executive Officer, Rural Engineering Department, Kasganj. The committee submitted its report on the basis of which the Additional District Magistrate, Kasganj/In charge (Local Bodies) issued order dated 15.6.2016 referred to Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kasganj indicating therein that the District Magistrate on 10.6.2016 has passed order to cancel those tenders which has been re-invited for work which already stood completed and to not open the bid for those works which were partially completed and for such works separate estimate should be prepared and then thereafter only fresh tenders should be invited. 6. It was further directed by the District Magistrate, Kasganj vide order dated 10.6.2016 that tender bids for only those works should be opened in which no work has been done. The letter dated 15.6.2016 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Kasganj/ In charge (Local Bodies) also refers to sewerage construction work which was undertaken by the petitioner’s firm in response to the earlier tender notice dated 4.8.2015 which was in the second category, i.e. those works which were partially completed and for which the District Magistrate, Kasganj vide order dated 10.6.2016 had directed to prepare the fresh estimate for completion of the rest of the work and to invite fresh tenders for remaining works. A spot inspection was also conducted on 22.6.2016 by a team comprising of Tehsildar (Judicial), Kasganj, Executive Officer P.W.D. Kasganj, Executive Officer, Rural Engineering Department, Kasganj which also submits its report indicating that the sewerage construction work was done at the spot but it is incomplete. 7. The petitioner in the meantime personally met the authorities multiple times and submitted representation dated 22.2.2017 for the payment of work done by the petitioner’s firm with regard to sewerage construction as well as towards supply of clamp with nut bolts. 8. The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kasganj also wrote a letter dated 12.9.2018 to the District Magistrate, Kasganj indicating therein that FDR with regard the cancelled tenders have already been returned to the contractors in compliance of the order dated 15.3.2018 and also submitted a report in reference to the tender awarded. However the FDR submitted by the petitioners as a consequence of the award of the tender for construction of sewerage was not returned to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner also submitted complaint on Tehsil Diwas under Integrated Grievance Redressal System for non payment of his dues on 19.2.2020 on which the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kasganj submitted its report that file with regard to the petitioner’s firm is not available in the office. The petitioner’s firm again submitted its complaint on 11.3.2020 under IGRS in which the account department of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Kasganj submitted its report that due to lack of funds payments could not be made. 10. The petitioner thereafter filed several representation to the authorities concerned and on one of such representations, a committee was constituted by the District Magistrate, Kasganj constituting a team of four members comprising of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Kasganj, Chairman, Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Department, Kasganj, Member, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kasganj, Member, Junior Engineer, Nagar Pakika Paraishad, Soron, Member, however it is not clear whether the said committee submitted any report. 11. The numerous representations submitted by the petitioner for redressal of grievance remained unanswered. 12. In the meantime the petitioner came to know that payment was made to one of the contractor who has done the interlocking work from Mishan Chauraha to Officer's colony which was the part of the tender invitation notice dated 4.8.2015 and was subsequently cancelled vide order dated 20.1.2016 by the District Magistrate, Kasganj. 12. In the meantime the petitioner came to know that payment was made to one of the contractor who has done the interlocking work from Mishan Chauraha to Officer's colony which was the part of the tender invitation notice dated 4.8.2015 and was subsequently cancelled vide order dated 20.1.2016 by the District Magistrate, Kasganj. The said payment was made in the year 2018 as stated in Paragraph No. 29 of the writ petition. The counter affidavit filed by the State Government has not categorically disputed the said fact while filing reply of Paragraph No. 29 of the writ petition. The petitioner by the inaction by the respondents in making payments to the work already done by him in furtherance of the tender notice dated 4.8.2015 filed the instant writ petition seeking the relief as mentioned hereinabove. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that work with regard to sewerage of construction as well as supply of clamp with nut bolts has been done by the petitioner pursuant to the award of tender to the petitioner’s firm on 19.08.2025, and subsequent thereto, work order was issued. He further submits that as per the tender invitation notice dated 04.08.2025, the work of sewerage construction was to be completed within two months and supply of clamp alongwith nut bolts was to be made within fifteen days of the award of tender. 14. He further submits that petitioner within the time prescribed in the tender notice completed the work of construction of sewerage upto 85% to 90% and also supplied clamp alongwith nut bolts which fact is admitted by the respondents. It is submitted that once petitioner has completed 85% to 90% work of sewerage construction and supplied clamp with nut bolts in compliance of work order, subsequent cancellation of tender cannot be a ground to deny the payment for the work of construction of sewerage done by the petitioner and supply of clamp with nut bolts particularly when there was no charge against the petitioner that there was any fault or negligence on the part of the petitioner in obtaining work order or work order has been obtained by the petitioner by fraud. 15. 15. He further submits that the action of the respondents in not making payment to the petitioner is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as in the identical circumstances, respondent had made payment to one of the contractors, who had done interlocking work from Mishan Chauraha to Officer’s Colony which was the part of the tender invitation notice dated 04.08.2015 and was subsequently cancelled vide order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Kasganj. He submits that the said payment was made in the year 2018 and the fact of payment made to other contractor has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit, therefore, action of the respondents in not making payment to the petitioner is arbitrary and cannot be sustained in law. 16. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would contend that since there was infirmity in issuing tender notice, therefore, District Magistrate, Kasganj has passed an order of cancellation of tender and accordingly, tender was cancelled and fresh tender notice was issued. Accordingly, he submits that since the work order was not issued to the petitioner in compliance of the valid tender notice, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to any amount for the work completed under the tender notice. 17. The undisputed fact that emerges from the pleadings in the writ petition as well as per the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, indicates that the petitioner completed 85 to 90 per cent of sewerage construction work after the award of the tender dated 4.8.2015 before its cancellation vide order dated 20.1.2016 and in the meantime has also completed the supply of the clamps along with nut bolts in reference to another tender which was also part of the tender notice dated 4.8.2015. The inquiry reports referred hereinabove i.e. 15.6.2016 and 28.6.2016 and spot inspection report dated 22.6.2016 conducted by the respondent authorities also discloses the fact that the sewerage construction work was partially completed by the petitioner. In fact, the District Magistrate, Kasganj directed for inviting fresh tenders to the extent of incompleted work of sewerage construction as per letter dated 22.6.2016 of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Kasganj. In fact, the District Magistrate, Kasganj directed for inviting fresh tenders to the extent of incompleted work of sewerage construction as per letter dated 22.6.2016 of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Kasganj. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner has partially completed the sewerage construction work as well as supplied the clamp along with nut bolts in furtherance of the tender notice dated 4.8.2015 but the payments could not be made as subsequently the tender was cancelled vide order dated 20.1.2016 and no agreement was executed with the petitioner’s firm for execution of the work. 18. Be that may be, the respondents cannot deny the payment of works done by the petitioner’s firm in response to the tenders awarded to it in reference to the tender notice dated 4.8.2015 on the ground that subsequently the tender was cancelled on 20.1.2016 as in the interregnum period, the petitioner’s firm has already completed 85 to 90 per cent of the sewerage construction work and has supplied the entire quantity of clamp with nut bolts. The cancellation of tender at the belated stage after more than five months cannot prejudice the cause of the petitioner entitling payment for the work done as the time limit for construction of sewerage was only two months as per the tender notice dated 4.8.2015 and the supply of clamp with nut bolts has to be done within fifteen days of the award of tender. 19. Once it is admitted that the petitioner’s firm has constructed 85 to 90 per cent of the sewerage construction work and has supplied the entire quantity of clamp with nut bolts, and there is no charge against the petitioner that he has obtained the work order by fraud or by concealing material fact then the respondents are bound to make payment for the work done by the petitioner's firm. The cancellation of tender vide order dated 20.1.2016 at the belated stage cannot come in the way of denial of payment to the petitioner’s firm as officials of Nagar Palika Parishad, Kasganj allowed the petitioner’s firm to continue with the work and supply of the clamp with nut bolts and as such they cannot turn around to deny payment to the petitioner’s firm as they are bound by the principle of promissory estoppel by their own conduct. 20. 20. It is also pertinent to mention that the action of the respondents in not making payment to the petitioner is arbitrary and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as respondents in identical circumstances have made payment to one of the contractor, who had done the interlocking work from Mishan Chauraha to Officer’s Colony which was the part of the tender invitation notice dated 04.08.2015 and was subsequently cancelled vide order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Kasganj. The said payment was made in the year 2018, and this fact has not been categorically denied by the respondents while replying paragraph no.29 of the writ petition. 21. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein below and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Kasganj to make payment of work done by the petitioner’s firm towards the sewerage construction from Soron Gate Police Chowki to Allahnoor Saifi's Shop to the extent of work completed by the petitioner’s firm and towards the supply of clamp with nut bolts within a period of two months from the presentation of certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.