Shri Govind Singh Mahant vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, Govind Singh Mahant, participated in a tender process initiated by the State of Uttarakhand for road reconstruction. He emerged as the successful bidder, and an acceptance letter was issued on March 9, 2021, for a total contract value of Rs. 1,02,60,109.25, including GST. The petitioner was required to deposit performance security and additional performance security totaling Rs. 47,95,726.78 and sign contract papers within seven days. The petitioner claims he received the acceptance letter late, on March 22, 2021, and was subsequently prevented by the respondents from complying with the conditions. Without communicating the cancellation, the respondents issued a fresh NIT on June 26, 2021. The petitioner later learned that his contract was cancelled on May 10, 2021. The petitioner challenged the cancellation letter and the fresh NIT through a writ petition.

Held

The Court held that there were disputed questions of fact regarding the cancellation of the work order, specifically whether the cancellation was legally justified and what rights accrued to the petitioner if it was not. These issues, the Court found, could only be determined in civil proceedings. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition on this ground. Regarding the challenge to the fresh bidding process, the Court noted that the petitioner's work order was admittedly cancelled on May 10, 2021. Consequently, the respondents could not be restrained from initiating a fresh tender process for the public work. The Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue civil remedies. An interim stay on the fresh tender process, granted during the pendency of the writ petition, was also noted, with a suggestion for the respondents to examine the feasibility of proceeding with it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the work order issued to the petitioner was legally justified, and if not, what rights accrued to the petitioner? (Question of mixed law and fact). 2. Whether the respondents should be restrained from proceeding with the fresh bidding process initiated on June 26, 2021? (Question of law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was prevented by the respondents from fulfilling the conditions of the acceptance letter and that the cancellation was done without proper communication. He sought to challenge the cancellation and the subsequent fresh tender process. Respondents' arguments: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, their actions, as described in the facts, indicate they proceeded with cancellation and a new tender process. The court noted that since the work order was admittedly cancelled on May 10, 2021, the respondents could not be restrained from initiating a fresh tender process.