Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 322 (RAJ)

Vishnu Electricals v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-12

MUNNURI LAXMAN

body2025
Order : Stay Petition No.2493/2025: 1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties on the stay petition. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the corrigendum dated 02.07.2024, issued in respect of Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) in pursuance of E-Tender No.030/2024-2025 whereby the work of comprehensive maintenance of Central Air Conditioning System at Serial No.2 of the e-tender, which was scheduled for depositing online from 24.06.2024 to 04.07.2024 and to be opened on 04.07.2024 was postponed for sale till 09.7.2024 and opened on 10.07.2024 with the condition mentioned in the corrigendum. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the successful bidder and a work order for comprehensive maintenance of Central Air Conditioning System and its machinery was also issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, when the maintenance work of the machinery was not commenced, by the impugned order dated 03.01.2025, the contract was rescinded. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the contract of maintenance could not be commenced on account of failure on the part of the respondents in handing over the possession of the machinery, maintenance of which was given to the petitioner by the aforesaid contract. He submitted that there were several correspondence made between the petitioner and the respondent to hand over the machinery but the same were not handed over to the petitioner. Hence, the maintenance work could not be completed in terms of the contract. 5. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that notice dated 08.10.2024, 17.12.2024 and the third notice dated 25.12.2024 were issued to the petitioner by Project Director, RSRDC Ltd. Unit Elect. Jodhpur, prior to 03.1.2025, requesting the petitioner to give information regarding taking over the work of maintenance of Air Conditioning System and its commencement within a period of two days, failing which they shall propose to terminate the contract. In respect of it, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 27.12.2024 i.e. within two days, expressing his willingness to complete the contract. He, therefore, submits that the contract was improperly rescinded, which requires interference of this Court. 6. A prayer was made for issuance of fresh NIT issued subsequently to the work order vide order dated 03.01.2025. 7. In respect of it, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 27.12.2024 i.e. within two days, expressing his willingness to complete the contract. He, therefore, submits that the contract was improperly rescinded, which requires interference of this Court. 6. A prayer was made for issuance of fresh NIT issued subsequently to the work order vide order dated 03.01.2025. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the letter addressed by the respondent in the month of December, 2024 also shows that a direction was given to the previous contractor, who was in-charge of the machinery, however, no such handover was made, as such the work of maintenance could not be commenced. With regard to delay attributed to the petitioner for the work, petitioner’s submission is that the respondents alone are responsible for the delay on account of failure to hand over the site or the system. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the additional condition of NIT mentioned in the impugned corrigendum, is that prior to continuance of the work, the bidder is required to inspect and assess the present condition of machinery. 9. It is also submitted that the work order was issued on 20.09.2024 and the stipulated date of commencement of work was 01.10.2024 and the work was to be completed till 30.09.2025 and there was much time for the petitioner to ask for handing over the machinery but the same was not done. After the commencement of the contract, the petitioner started making letter correspondence seeking handing over of the machinery. According to him, the condition of the machinery should have been inspected prior to entering into the contract. Having agreed to enter into the agreement, the petitioner cannot contend that he is not under obligation to maintain machinery. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that before cancelling the contract vide impugned order dated 03.01.2025, sufficient time was given to comply the terms and conditions of the contract, failing which a show cause notice was given to the petitioner with regard to termination of said contract. In spite of giving opportunity, the petitioner wrote a letter for taking control over the machinery and maintain the machinery. In the said circumstances, the impugned order of termination of contact was made after complying the principles of natural justice and such order required no interference of this Court. 11. In spite of giving opportunity, the petitioner wrote a letter for taking control over the machinery and maintain the machinery. In the said circumstances, the impugned order of termination of contact was made after complying the principles of natural justice and such order required no interference of this Court. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that subsequent to cancellation of contract with the petitioner, a new NIT by e-Tender No.437/2024-2025 dated 08.01.2025 was issued by the respondents and the petitioner participated in the said tender proceedings. In the said circumstances, the petitioner would be allowed to take part in the second he may take part in the subsequent tender proceedings. 12. Having gone through the contention and the facts before this Court, it is not disputed fact that the work of contract was executed on 20.09.2024 and the contract was commended from01.10.2024. 13. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the possession of the machinery was not handed over to him and if such grievance was there, he should have take steps to ask for handing over of the machinery before the commencement of contract. It cannot be said that petitioner was not at fault on account of not handing over the machinery because from the terms and conditions of the tender it is clear that the petitioner was under obligation to check and assess the machinery before commencement of the work. Petitioner cannot say that commencement of work was only on handing over the machinery by the respondent. In such circumstance, it is not fit case for grant of interim relief. The stay petition is, therefore, dismissed. 14. In light of the aforesaid finding, the writ petition is also dismissed.