Dismissed

Deepthi Transport Service v. the Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited (Kmml)

Kerala HC11 Dec 2020WP(C)/15006/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Deepthi Transport Service seeking to quash the cancellation of a work order. The court held that the cancellation was justified due to the petitioner's failure to commence work within four months and non-payment of security deposit, citing public law elements and contractual obligations.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the cancellation of the work order was upheld.

Deepthi Transport Service Vs the Kerala… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY,THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020/20TH AGRAHAYANA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.15006 OF 2020(A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DEEPTHI TRANSPORT SERVICE, IRE ROAD, VADAKADAM BUILDING, KARITHURA, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 583, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER CALLISTUS ZACHARIA.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.PRANOY K.KOTTARAM

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED (KMML), SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED(KMML), SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691583.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, HOD (MS UNIT), THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED (KMML), SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583

¶13

ADDL. 4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KOLLAM – 691 013.

¶14

WPC No.15006/2020

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

ADDL. 5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KOLLAM – 691 013.

¶17

(ADDITIONAL R4 AND R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.09.2020 IN I.A.NO.1/2020 IN WP(C)) R1-R3 SRI. K.ANAND (SR) R1-R3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.PROMOD KUMAR R4-R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-12-2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC No.15006/2020

: 3 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.15006 of 2020

¶24

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2020

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶27

The petitioner, an enterprise registered under the

¶28

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development, Act, 2006, is before this Court seeking to declare that cancellation of work order by the 1^st respondent and re-tendering of the work, are illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner further seeks to quash Ext.P9 cancellation letter and Ext.P14 re-tender notification.

¶29

The 1^st respondent-Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited (KMML) invited e-tender for the work of site clearance, dewatering the mining pit and mining the inland deposits of Kovilthottam mining area (northern and southern side of church) by excavating or dredging or by any other

¶30

WPC No.15006/2020

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

means up to a depth of mineralisation (min. 8 metre), and depositing the mineral sand in level ground, heaping for dewatering, economic way of loading and transporting the same by tippers to the Mineral Separation (MS) Unit and for transportation of tailing sand from MS Unit. The petitioner was the successful bidder. The 1^st respondent issued Ext.P2 work order dated 29.02.2020 to the petitioner for a contract value of ₹20,51,00,000/-. The period of work was one year from the date of the work order.

¶33

The petitioner states that the petitioner paid ₹2 lakhs as EMD. The 3^rd respondent terminated the contract on 08.07.2020 as per Ext.P9 termination notice. Ext.P9 stated two reasons for termination of the contract, namely non-commencement of work and non-payment of security deposit. The petitioner states that this is not the first time that the petitioner has executed work on behalf of the 1^st respondent. The petitioner has executed more than 18 works. The normal practice followed by the 1^st respondent is to deduct security deposit from the first payment due to the

WPC No.15006/2020

: 5 :

contractor.

The petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 letter dated 24.03.2020, informing the 1^st respondent that security deposit can be deducted from the first invoice of the petitioner. The petitioner further stated that the delay in execution was due to the spread of Covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown imposed. There were serious issues in the locality identified for excavation demanding reclamation of the excavated area, by the evictees. There were labour issues also, when the locals demanded employment. Due to the objections, all mining activities in the area were suspended.

¶38

The RDO, Kollam had to convene a meeting of the stakeholders on 19.06.2020. In the said meeting, an agreement was arrived at between the persons concerned and representatives of various trade unions and political parties in the locality. Under this agreement, the 1^st respondent was to provide employment to affected persons on contract basis. In spite of that, the issues continued and no decision was taken on commencement of mining at the

¶39

WPC No.15006/2020

¶40

: 6 :

¶41

locality. Ext.P4 minutes of the meeting would evidence these facts.

¶42

The petitioner further stated that costly machinery including excavators were purchased by the petitioner expending considerable sum to carry out the work in question. The petitioner also mobilised employees. By Ext.P7 letter dated 30.06.2020, the petitioner was directed to start the work. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P8 representation to the District Collector requiring to convene a meeting and convince the trade unions and the stakeholders to provide a conducive atmosphere for carrying out the work awarded to the petitioner. However, the issues are not solved. The non-commencement of the work was not due to any fault of the petitioner. The situation was totally beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶43

The petitioner further stated that one Jose Antony had filed W.P.(C) No.7326/2020 on 07.03.2020 challenging the award of work to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the said case and filed a detailed counter affidavit.

¶44

WPC No.15006/2020

¶45

: 7 :

¶46

However, on 09.07.2020, when the writ petition came up for hearing, a submission was made on behalf of the 1^st respondent that the work order issued to the petitioner herein is already cancelled. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of. The action of the respondents in cancelling the work awarded to the petitioner is grossly illegal, highly arbitrary and unsustainable, contended the petitioner.

¶47

Respondents 1 to 3 defended the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The respondents stated that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is no public law element involved. The remedy of the petitioner is elsewhere and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The work awarded to the petitioner was cancelled on 08.07.2020, after six months from 29.02.2020 on which date Ext.P2 work order was issued. Before cancelling the work order, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P7 notice. The respondents thereafter issued Ext.P14, a fresh tender notification. The fresh tender proceedings are put on hold, due to the interim order passed by this Court. The respondents further stated that the

¶48

WPC No.15006/2020

¶49

: 8 :

¶50

petitioner was bound to make payment of security deposit within 15 days.

¶51

The learned Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel for the petitioner, strenuously argued that the cancellation of the work order granted to the lowest tenderer for trivial reasons is highly arbitrary and unsustainable. The work could not commence in time due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 were indeed aware of the ground situation. In spite of interference by the District authorities, there was no conducive atmosphere to start the work. Even under the terms of contract, the respondents could have very well realised the security deposit payable by the petitioner from the first invoice itself. Therefore, cancellation of work for these reasons, is illegal and just.

¶52

Relying on the judgment of this Court in Vijayakumari v. Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited [2020 (3) KLT 773] , the learned Senior Counsel argued that when the High Court, under Article 226 of the

¶53

WPC No.15006/2020

¶54

: 9 :

¶55

Constitution reaches a conclusion, upon consideration of materials placed before it, that the decision of the authority was so unfair, arbitrary or unreasonable, its hands are not tied and the High Court can grant such reliefs as it deems necessary to set right the illegality.

¶56

Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] , the learned Senior Counsel argued that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is the rule of self-imposed limitation. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to get relief, contended the learned Senior Counsel.

¶57

The Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that contract

¶58

WPC No.15006/2020

¶59

: 10 :

¶60

between the parties is under the realm of private law governed by the provisions of the Contract Act and the dispute relating to interpretation of terms and conditions of contract cannot be agitated in a writ petition and it has been so held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Others v. Gayatri Construction Company and Others [(2008) 8 SCC 172]. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Bihar and Others v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 216] , the Standing Counsel asserted that Article 226 is not the remedy for enforcing contractual obligations.

¶61

The learned Standing Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Highway Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises and others [(2003) 7 SCC 410] to question the maintainability of this writ petition. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board and Others v. Kurien E. Kalathil and Others [(2000) 6 SCC 293] , the Standing Counsel argued that when the contract between the parties is not a

¶62

WPC No.15006/2020

¶63

: 11 :

¶64

statutory contract, the disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such contract should not be agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Others v. Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. [(1996) 6 SCC 22] , was relied on by the Standing Counsel to underline that the remedy adopted by the petitioner is misconceived as the contract between the parties is a contract in the realm of private law.

¶65

I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 4 and 5.

¶66

The tender in respect of the work in question was issued on 04.12.2019, as per Ext.P1. The work order was granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P2, on 29.02.2020. The work had to be completed within a period of one year. As the petitioner did not at all start the work, respondents 1 to 3 issued Ext.P7 letter dated 30.06.2020 requiring the petitioner

¶67

WPC No.15006/2020

¶68

: 12 :

¶69

to commence the work. It was on the failure of the petitioner to commence the work that Ext.P9 order of cancellation of the work order, was issued by the respondents.

¶70

Going by the nature of the work, it is clear that it is a work to be carried out on a day-to-day basis. Time bound and regular input of mineral sand is necessary for the running of the 1^st respondent-company. Any delay in execution of the work in question would indeed affect the very functioning of the industry of the 1^st respondent. The petitioner though was aware of this fact, did not commence the work for more than four months, which is a substantial period. The delay on the part of the petitioner is capable of inflicting material blow to the production and productivity of the 1^st respondent-company, which is a public sector undertaking.

¶71

Respondents 1 to 3 have specifically denied the allegation of the petitioner relating to the labour issues subsisting in the area, hampering the commencement of the work. Respondents 1 to 3 have specifically stated that there

¶72

WPC No.15006/2020

¶73

: 13 :

¶74

is nothing to show that the petitioner was prevented from commencing the work. The petitioner has no case that he tried to start the work, which was obstructed by third parties. Whether there is labour unrest preventing the petitioner from commencing the work, is a disputed question of fact, which this Court cannot adjudicate in writ proceedings. This Court cannot pass an order based on a disputed question of fact.

¶75

The other reason for cancelling the work order is that the petitioner has not paid the security deposit within the stipulated 15 days. The work order issued to the petitioner shows that in case security deposit is not submitted by the petitioner before the commencement of the work, the company holds its right to withhold an equal amount towards civil security deposit from payments made against the work. This, however, is only a provision enabling respondents 1 to 3 to withhold security amount equal to the security deposit from the petitioner. The said enabling provision in the work order will not give a corresponding right to the petitioner not to make security deposit as agreed. The argument of the

¶76

WPC No.15006/2020

¶77

: 14 :

¶78

petitioner in defence of non-payment of security deposit also is therefore unsustainable.

¶79

In the facts of the case, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the interim order passed by this Court on 29.07.2020 and extended thereafter, would also stand vacated.

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/07.12.2020

WPC No.15006/2020

: 15 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶87

EXHIBIT P1	A COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER UNDER THE MSME ACT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 29.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P3	A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.03.2020 BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 19.06.2020 PREPARED BY THE R.D.O.
EXHIBIT P5	A COPY OF INVOICE OF PURCHASING JS205
	TRACK EXCAVATOR FOR A SUM OF INR 50,50,000.00 DATED 28.05.2020.
EXHIBIT P6	A COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 16.05.2020.
EXHIBIT P7	A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.06.2020 BY THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P8	A COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 02.07.2020.
EXHIBIT P9	A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.07.2020 BY THE RESPONDENTS CANCELLING THE WORK ORDER.
EXHIBIT P10	A COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE DATED 13.05.2020.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2020 DISPOSING WPC 7326/2020.
EXHIBIT P12	A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER DATED 09.07.2020.
EXHIBIT P13	A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.07.2020

¶88

WPC No.15006/2020

¶89

: 16 :

¶90

EXHIBIT P14	A COPY INVITING	OF THE TENDER	RELEVANT PAGES NOTICE DATED 09.07.2020.
EXHIBIT P15	A TRUE 15.06.202 VARIOUS T	COPY 0 ISSU RADE U	OF THE LETTER DATED ED BY THE PETITIONER TO NIONS
EXHIBIT P16	A TRUE 16.06.202 RESPONDEN	COPY 0 BY T.	OF THE LETTER DATED FR.MILTON TO THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P17	A TRUE 08.07.202 COLLECTOR	COPY 0 ISS TO TH	OF THE LETTER DATED UED BY THE DISTRICT E 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18	A TRUE 28.07.202 COLLECTOR GRAMA PAN	COPY 0 ISS TO T CHAYAT	OF THE LETTER DATED UED BY THE DISTRICT HE SECRETARY , CHAVARA .

Deepthi Transport Service v. the Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited (Kmml)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepthi Transport Service v. the Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited (Kmml)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.P.Narayana Pisharady Vs the Executive Engineer

Nithin Maheswari Vs National Insurance Company Limited

Usman Cholayil Vs the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs

Mary.J Vs State of Kerala

Mary.J Vs State of Kerala

Shajida Shajahan Vs the District Magistrate