STATE OF U.P. versus SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 16-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 21 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
571
   [2020] 13 S.C.R. 571
STATE OF U.P.
v.
SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3498 of 2020)
 OCTOBER 16, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Principles of Natural Justice – audi alteram partem – Breach
of – U.P. State Warehousing Corporation issued e-tender inter alia
for unloading/loading of foodgrains/fertilizer bags from/into railway
wagons, trucks etc.; transporting from Railway Station to
Corporation godowns or vice versa – Tender cancelled – e-tender
again published in the same terms, for Vindhyachal (Mirzapur)
region, it was regarding appointment of Handling and Transport
Contractor for food grain in FCI for four depots/centres of Uttar
Pradesh for two years – Cancelled again – Another tender reissued
for the same region – Respondent No.1 declared as successful
bidder for the Bhawanipur-I centre – Agreement entered into
between the Corporation and Respondent No.1 for execution of
the work under the tender – Complaints of financial irregularities
in the issuance of the e-tender – Tender cancelled – Respondent
no.1 filed Writ Petition – Allowed – On appeal, held: Prayer in the
Writ Petition confined itself to the cancellation of the tender –
However, impugned judgment went ahead and not only set aside
such cancellation vide letter dtd. 26.07.19, but also set aside the
Managing Director’s report dtd. 14.06.19, and the Special
Secretary’s order of 16.07.19, which required taking disciplinary
action and recovery of financial loss from those responsible – Set
aside to that extent – Further, entire proceedings leading to
cancellation of the tender, together with the cancellation itself, were
done on an ex parte appraisal of the facts behind respondent no.1’s
back – Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary
to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice – In the present case,
respondent no.1 was completely in the dark so far as the cancellation
of the tender is concerned, the audi alteram partem rule having been
breached in its entirety – Impugned judgment upheld on this ground
– Tenders – Maxims – Constitution of India – Arst.226, 14.
571
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Writ petition – Maintainability
of, for enforcing contractual obligation of the State/its
instrumentality – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Despite the fact that the prayer in the Writ
Petition filed by Respondent No.1 was set out in the very
beginning of the impugned judgment, confining itself to the
cancellation of the second tender, the impugned judgment went
ahead and not only set aside such cancellation vide the letter dated
26.07.2019, but also went ahead and set aside the Managing
Director’s report dated 14.06.2019, and the Special Secretary’s
order of 16.07.2019, which required the taking of disciplinary
action and recovery of financial loss from those who are
responsible. It was fairly conceded that no relief was asked qua
the delinquent officers. This being the case, the impugned
judgment is set aside insofar as it has quashed the Managing
Director’s report dated 14.06.2019, and the order of the Special
Secretary dated 16.07.2019. Any consequential action that is to
be taken pursuant to these orders must follow in accordance with
law. Every case in which a citizen/person knocks at the doors of
the writ court for breach of his or its fundamental rights is a matter
which contains a “public law element”, as opposed to a case which
is concerned only with breach of contract and damages flowing
therefrom. Whenever a plea of breach of natural justice is made
against the State, the said plea, if found sustainable, sounds in
constitutional law as arbitrary State action, which attracts the
provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The present
case is, therefore, a case which involves a “public law element”
in that the petitioner (Respondent No.1) who knocked at the
doors of the writ court alleged breach of the audi alteram partem
rule, as the entire proceedings leading to cancellation of the
tender, together with the cancellation itself, were done on an ex
parte appraisal of the facts behind his back. [Paras 18, 23][589-F-
H; 590-A-B; 598-E-G]
Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat (1974) 2
SCC 121 :  [1974] 3 SCR 427 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
1.2 In some of the early judgments of this Court, the non-
observance of natural justice was said to be prejudice in itself to
the pers

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.