Sanjay Construction vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent-Municipal Corporation Faridabad undertook to consider the petitioner's concerns and grievances and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner's counsel agreed to this course of action, requesting that the authorities be directed to act within a specified time. The Court expressed its sanguine expectation that the authorities would look into the matter earnestly and pass appropriate orders within the indicated timeframe. The Court explicitly stated that its order did not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, as the competent authority would examine the petitioner's concerns strictly in accordance with law.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjay Construction, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents (State of Haryana and Municipal Corporation Faridabad) to release/reimburse the amount of GST deposited by it. This deposit was made as per Clause 13.4 Section 1 of the Bidding Document/Detailed Notice Inviting Tender (DNIT) for various work orders allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted thirteen bills for part of the work done, and subsequently deposited the GST amount via tax invoices, which was made mandatory by the Government of Haryana for such reimbursement. The petitioner had also served a legal notice and a representation to the respondents regarding its grievances, but no tangible progress was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to release/reimburse the GST amount deposited by the petitioner as per the terms of the bidding document and subsequent government instructions? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the respondents are bound to reimburse the GST amount as it was deposited in compliance with the bidding document and government instructions. They relied on Clause 13.4 Section 1 of the Bidding Document/DNIT and a letter dated 12.06.2024 from the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Haryana, which indicated a precedent for such reimbursement. The petitioner also sought a direction for the respondents to decide its legal notice and representation by passing a speaking order. The respondents, represented by the State and Municipal Corporation Faridabad, did not contest the petitioner's claim on merits. Instead, the counsel for Municipal Corporation Faridabad submitted that the matter was under active consideration and it would be expedient to dispose of the petition to allow the corporation to deal with the petitioner's grievances. They assured that the petitioner would be heard before any orders are passed.