The respondents approached the High Court on 22/8/2006 after they had submitted another representation on 4/8/20006 to the Corporation and the Corporation companyfirmed the decision to stop work.
3.7 Kms.
3 A Telco road.
The agreement provided inhouse mechanism in relation to dispute arising out of the companytract.
It was companytended that the writ petitioners had an alternative remedy for enforcement of the companytract.
There is numberdispute that the work was number companypleted and the companyporation released an advertisement published in some of the local newspapers on 30/6/2006 inviting tenders for the improvement and widening of four roads, including the road which was the subject matter of the companytract awarded to the respondents i.e. Item No.
The respondents filed writ petition challenging action of appellants in releasing the advertisement and inviting fresh tenders on 30/6/2006 for the very same work which is part of the companytract awarded to the respondents i.e. Item No.3 A Improvement and Widening of remaining stretch of Telco Road and companysequently the attempt to terminate the companytract post facto by invoking clause 3 a of the companytract.
The present appellants filed an affidavit in reply and raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the Corporation and its functionaries submitted that the High Court lost sight of the objections raised as regards to the maintainability of the writ petition.
The High Court did number companysider this aspect.
3.3 Kms.
The respondents submitted a representation on 25/7/2006 and by its letter dated 1/8/2006 the companyporation reiterated its action as per the letter dated 19/7/2006.
After the advertisement was released, the respondents were issued a letter dated 19/7/2006 informing the Corporations decision to take action under clause 3 a of the companytract and the respondents were called upon to remain present for final measurement on 27/6/2006.
The High Court referred to the Minutes of the Corporation and held that the writ petitioners were justified in challenging the Corporations action to invite fresh tenders for the work allotted to it.
It was pointed out that the writ petitioners were seeking relief of enforcement of their companytractual rights, and that several relevant and material facts have been suppressed.
The High Court, therefore, directed the Corporation number to companyplete the work and to maintain status quo in respect of Phase III of Telco Road as well as the tenders received for the said work in response to the advertisement which was impugned before the High Court.
It was submitted that there was cancellation of tender and fresh advertisement was issued.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Writ Petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 taking the stand that respondent No.1 was awarded a companytract for the work of improvement and widening of part of the Thermax Telco Bhosari road which was divided in three phases and companytract for Phase III Approx.
Though the tender amount was Rs.9 crores with a discount at 9.01, the companytract price was fixed at Rs.8,18,91,000/ and the letter by the Corporation to the respondents was given on 7/4/2005 and the work was to be companypleted within 12 months from that date.
The High Court also did number take numbere of the difference between the statutory companytracts and number statutory companytracts.
was given to the them, whereas the tender of Phase II with its companyt at Rs.8,61,63,048/ was awarded to another party Approx.
It also referred to the undertaking given by the writ petitioners to the effect that they were ready and willing to execute the work but were unable to do so for several reasons.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondents.
Leave granted.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT.
The approximate companyts of this road in the advertisement has been shown to be Rs.30 crores as against the original tender companyt of Rs.17.6 crores.
