The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the reduction of a one-year contract extension to three months. The Court held that the respondent did not act arbitrarily in deciding the extension period and that no order for a one-year extension was ever granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
909.wpl 834.16.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 834 OF 2016
B.P. Motor Lounch Service
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust .. Respondent
Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, for the Petitioner. Mr.Hemant Prabhulkar a/w Ms.Sonali Jain i/b Juris, for Respondent.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE &
M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 31st MARCH, 2016
P.C. :
. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under :
1/6
909.wpl 834.16.doc
Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (for short 'JNPT'). The tender notice was published by the respondent - JNPT in January 2015. The petitioner was declared to be a successful bidder and on 05th February 2015, the work order was issued in favour of the petitioner. As per the said work order, the period of contract was for one year. However, JNPT can extend the said contract for a further period of one year.
2/6
909.wpl 834.16.doc
and therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. He has invited our attention to the work order and subsequent correspondence between the parties. He submitted that in fact the letter dated 17th November 2015 was a letter extending the contract for a further period of one year. He submitted that as the petitioner had accepted the said work order, there was no occasion to again issue a fresh letter dated 02nd February 2016 curtailing the period to three months only.
“JNPT is pleased to award the contract for providing “Passenger launch service between JN Port and Mumbai” for a period of one year extendible by one more year at the sole discretion of JNPT on the following terms and conditions:”
Clauses 13, 14 & 15 of the said work order read as under :
“13. JNPT reserves the right to terminate the contract by giving 30 day's notice without assigning any reason whatsoever and as per Clause-21 of the General Conditions of the Contract.
14. JNPT also reserves the right to foreclose the contract with the contractor in part or full by giving one month's notice as per Clause -21(c) of the General Conditions of the Contract.
15. Any dispute arising out of this contract shall be resolved as per Clause 20 of the General Conditions of the Contract.”
3/6
909.wpl 834.16.doc
“With reference to the subject Work Order for Providing Passenger Launch Services between Mumbai and JNPT, we would like to extend this contract for a further period of one year as per the General Conditions of Contract Clause No. 2 (Period of Contract) of the tender document, there is a provision for extension of the contract for further period upto one year on the same rates, terms and conditions.
Hence, you are requested to confirm acceptance of the same at the earliest to enable us to process the extension.”
4/6
909.wpl 834.16.doc
“With reference to captioned subject, JNPT is pleased to extend the present contract awarded for providing Passenger launch service between Mumbai & JNPT with effect from 05th February, 2016 for a further period of three months or till placement of fresh work order, whichever is earlier on the same rates, terms and conditions as per present contract.”
5/6
909.wpl 834.16.doc
its tender bid on or before 04th April 2016. If the said bis is given, it may be considered in accordance with law. Secondly, even if a fresh tender is awarded to the successful bidder, that tender would come into operation only after three months from 05th February 2016.
( M.S.KARNIK, J.)
(V. M. KANADE, J.)
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the State/tribunal can exercise its discretion to extend the contract period for only three months instead of one year after inviting acceptance for one year extension
Whether the respondent acted arbitrarily in not extending the contract for the full one year as requested by the petitioner
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of one year as a matter of right
B.P. Motor Lounch Service
Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust
V. M. KANADE
M.S.KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
