M/S Uma Ram And Sons vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Uma Ram And Sons, a proprietorship concern, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and directions for payment of outstanding dues for work done under a previous tender. The petitioner also sought to complete electrification work under the earlier tender with revised rates for materials, GST, and labour. The respondents, the State of Rajasthan and the Executive Engineer, Medical and Health, Jodhpur, had rescinded the contract for the work done under tender no. 32 Year 2021-22. The respondents stated that the contract was withdrawn under clause/Section 32 of the agreement due to delays in civil work, and new tenders were issued when the petitioner became reluctant to perform. The petitioner made a limited submission that outstanding dues for completed work should be paid as per tender conditions.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction. It held that for the work already completed by the petitioner, the petitioner-firm must submit bills based on measurements maintained by the respondents. Upon submission of these bills, the respondents are directed to consider them and make the necessary payment within a period of three months thereafter, strictly in accordance with law. The Court did not explicitly address the petitioner's prayer to complete the electrification work with increased rates or quash the new NIT, focusing solely on the payment for completed work. The reasoning appears to be based on the mutual understanding that payment for work done is a contractual obligation, even if the contract is rescinded for other reasons, provided the work was completed as per the original terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment for the work already completed under tender no. 32 Year 2021-22, despite the rescission of the contract? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the rescinded contract for electrification work at CHC Kelansar completed with increased market rates for materials, GST, and labour? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that for the work completed before the contract rescission, outstanding dues must be paid as per the tender conditions. They also sought to complete the electrification work with revised rates. Respondents' arguments: The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the contract was withdrawn under clause/Section 32 of the agreement due to delays in civil work. They stated that nothing was owed to the petitioner except for the completed work, and new tenders were issued as the petitioner was reluctant to perform. The respondents did not explicitly argue against the payment for completed work but highlighted the reason for contract withdrawal.