M/S Friday TO Friday Infra Devlopers Through Its Proprietor Sayed Imran Quadri vs. State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Friday to Friday Infra Developers, participated in an NIT for the operation and management of Khelgaon Club House, Ranchi, and was issued a work order as the highest bidder. The work order was for the period from 01.08.2020 to 31.07.2035. The petitioner was required to submit a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,35,000/- for 20 years and an operation fee of Rs. 1,23,900/- including GST until 31.03.2021. Due to bank limitations, the petitioner submitted a bank guarantee for 10 years with auto-renewal for another 10 years, along with the operation fee, which was accepted. The petitioner's grievance is that respondent No. 3 has not executed the agreement despite the petitioner submitting a non-judicial stamp paper, and is directly booking the club house, bypassing the petitioner. The petitioner also sought adjustment of Rs. 16,40,849/- spent on salaries and other expenses.

Held

The Court, without entering into the merits of the case, granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation before respondent No. 2 (The Secretary, Department of Tourism, Arts, Culture, Sports & Youth Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi). Upon receipt of this representation, respondent No. 2 is directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner's representative and respondent No. 3. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 shall take an informed decision in accordance with law within two months from the date of filing the representation. The Court did not decide on the specific prayers for execution of the agreement or adjustment of expenses, leaving these to be decided by respondent No. 2. The issue of adjusting Rs. 16,40,849/- was not expressly decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct respondent No. 3 to execute the agreement for the operation and maintenance of Khelgaon Club House, Khelgaon, Ranchi, as per the work order issued to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, concerning contract execution). 2. Whether the Court should direct respondent No. 3 to adjust Rs. 16,40,849/- spent by the petitioner towards salaries and other expenses for the security of the club house? (Question of law and fact, concerning financial adjustment). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were the highest bidder and issued a work order. They fulfilled the conditions by submitting the operation fee including GST and a bank guarantee, albeit with a modified tenure due to bank constraints, which was accepted. The respondent's failure to execute the agreement and direct booking of the club house is causing prejudice. They also sought reimbursement for expenses incurred. Revenue/State's arguments: No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents in the judgment.