M/S Shri Krishna Infra Developer vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. The primary reason for dismissal was the petitioner's delay in challenging the revised letter of intent. The Court noted that the petitioner had completed the entire work awarded to them without raising a protest at the time of commencement or during execution. The Court held that after completing the work, the petitioner could not turn back and challenge the revised LOI or the purchase order on any grounds. If the petitioner had any grievance, they ought to have objected promptly and stopped the tendered work. The Court found no good ground to entertain the writ petition at such a belated stage, considering the work had already been executed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shri Krishna Infra Developer, a partnership firm engaged in electrical contracting, filed a writ petition challenging a revised letter of intent (LOI) and a subsequent order rejecting their representation. The respondent, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, issued a tender for road light electrification. The petitioner emerged as the Lowest Bidder (L1) with a bid of Rs. 1,39,68,000/- (excluding GST). An initial LOI was issued for Rs. 1,62,73,449/- (including GST). Subsequently, a revised LOI was issued on July 8, 2020, reducing the total cost to Rs. 1,37,86,356/- without assigning reasons. The petitioner protested this reduction, stating it affected itemized prices. Despite representations, the respondents rejected them vide an order dated February 19, 2021, citing the petitioner's acceptance of contract terms and conditions. The petitioner had already completed the tendered work.

Key Issues

1. Whether the revised letter of intent dated 08.07.2020, which reduced the contract value without providing reasons, is arbitrary and illegal? The petitioner argued that the reduction in the LOI value was due to a clerical error by the respondents and affected the itemized prices, and they sought the original contract value. The petitioner relied on their immediate protest and subsequent representations. 2. Whether the impugned order dated 19.02.2021, rejecting the petitioner's representation, is sustainable in law? The petitioner contended that the respondents failed to consider their objections to the revised LOI and the purchase order, despite the petitioner signing the agreement and commencing work with the expectation of rectification. The respondents' reason for rejection was the petitioner's alleged mutual agreement to the rates, terms, and conditions. The petitioner argued they were constrained to sign the agreement and start work.