Sri Prem Prakash vs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation

Held

The Court, having heard the learned counsel for both parties and considering the confined prayer of the petitioner, decided to dispose of the writ petition without entering into the merits of the case. The Court directed the respondent no. 2 (The Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation) to take an appropriate decision regarding the refund of the settlement/endowment amount to the petitioner. This decision was to be made by passing an informed order within two weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the Court's order. The Court did not delve into the specifics of whether the petitioner was entitled to the refund with interest or the reasons for the non-execution of the agreement and non-handover of possession. The primary focus was on directing the authority to decide on the refund.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Prem Prakash, participated in an online tender floated by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation for the collection of parking fees at Jaipal Singh Stadium and Bal Krishna Sahay Road. He was declared the highest bidder on April 6, 2022, and was informed of this on April 18, 2022. He was required to deposit Rs. 18,30,000/- along with GST and TCS. The petitioner deposited the entire amount by April 21, 2022. Authority letters were issued to him on April 25, 2022. Subsequently, the petitioner requested the respondents to execute an agreement and hand over peaceful possession of the parking spaces, free from encroachment. Despite requests and a legal notice dated July 16, 2022, no agreement was entered into, nor was possession handed over. The respondents also did not refund the deposited amount. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking these reliefs or, in the alternative, the refund of the deposited amount with interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to sign an agreement and hand over peaceful, encroachment-free possession of the parking spaces to the petitioner, as per the terms of the tender and subsequent deposit of the settlement amount, under the relevant provisions of contract law and municipal bye-laws governing tender processes? 2. In the alternative, whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the deposited settlement/endowment amount of Rs. 18,30,000/- along with interest at 18% per annum, given the failure of the respondents to fulfill their obligations? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was the highest bidder, deposited the required amount, and was issued authority letters. He argued that the respondents failed to execute the agreement and hand over possession, despite his repeated requests and a legal notice. Therefore, he is entitled to either the possession and agreement or a refund with interest. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, stated that no counter affidavit had been filed but indicated that the petitioner did not deposit the entire amount in time after being declared the successful bidder.