LexPIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. versus M/S GAYATRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 980
""'
A
PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
v.
M/S GAYATRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4912 of 2008)
B
AUGUST 6, 2008
....
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226/lndian Contract
t
Act, 1872:
Writ petition in contractual matter - Maintainability of -
~
Held: Not maintainable.
Appellant and the respondents entered into an
D
agreement for construction of road. There arose some.
disputes and the contract was terminated. Fresh tenders
were invited for construction and widening of road, which
""
was the subject matter of the contract. Respondents cha I-
lenged the same by filing a writ petition, which was al-
E
lowed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
The question which arose for determination in the
present appeal was about the maintainability of the writ
petition in respect of contractual disputes between ap-
pellant-Corporation and the respondents-Contractors.
F
Appellant contended that the High Court lost sight
~
of the objections raised as regards the maintainability of
the writ petition; that the writ petition was not maintain-
able in respect of contractual matters; that the respon-
dents were seeking relief of enforcement of their contrac-
G
tual rights; and that several relevant and material facts
have been suppressed.
Respondents-Contractor submitted that the Corpo-
ration itself was guilty.of not providing the requisite infra-
H
980
PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPN. & ORS. v. 981
M/S GAYATRI CONSTRUCTION CO. & ANR.
structure for carrying out the contractual obligations. The
A
difficulties have been highlighted in various representa-
tions to the Corporation. But without any plausible rea-
son and without following the principles of natural jus-
tice the fresh advertisement was issued by the Corpora-
~
ti on.
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The High Court ought not to have entertained
the writ petition. It appears that by order dated 17 .1.2007
interim stay of the impugned order was granted and was c
continued by order dated 12.2.2007. It is pointed out by
the counsel for the appellants that since the order of the
High Court was stayed and there was urgency in the mat-
ter fresh tenders were called for. Three persons submit-
ted the bids and the work has already been allotted and a D
considerable portion of the work has already been com-
..,,
pleted. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order of the
High Court is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
It is however open to the respondents-writ petitioners to
seek such remedy, if so advised, as is available in law. E
(Para - 13) [991-D-F]
National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enter-
·prises (2003) 7 SCC 410; Kera/a State Electricity Board and
Anr. v. Kurien E. Kalathil and Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 293; State of
Gujarat and Ors. v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust and F
..
Ors. (1994) 3 SCC 552; State of UP and Ors. v. Bridge &
Roof Company (India) Ltd. (1996) 6 SCC 22 and India Ther-
ma/ Power Ltd. v. State of M.P and Ors. (2000) 3 sec 379 -
relied on.
·'
Case Law Reference
G
(2003) 1 sec 410 .
Relied on
Para - 8
ll
'
(2000) s sec 293
Relied on
Para - 9
,,..
(1994) 3 sec 552
Relied on
Para - 10
H
982·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
'<('
A
(1996) s sec 22
Relied on
Para -11
(2000) 3 sec 379
Relied on
Para - 12
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4912
of 2008
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2006 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5681
of 2006
Makarand D. Adkar and Vishwajit Singh for the Appellants.
c
Sh~khar Naphade, E.C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi
Ag~~wala, Gaurav Goel and Amit Kumar Sharma for the Re-
spondehts.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Divisior.
""'
Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed
by the respondents.
E
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Writ Petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 taking the
stand that respondent No.1 was awarded a contract for the work
of improvement and widening of part of the Thermax:-Telco-
F
Bhosari road which was divided in th-ree phases and contract
for Phase-Ill (Approx. 3.7 Kms.) was given to the them, whereas
the tender of Phase-II with its cost at Rs.8,61,63,048/- was
~
awardExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.