Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18108 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shree Communication And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey,Manoj Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.K. Maurya for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State.
By means of present petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 19.9.2020 passed by District Magistrate, Deoria by which e-contract/ e-tender of petitioners has been cancelled.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 3 issued an online advertisement on 27.7.2020 inviting e-tenders for construction of crematorium and allied works. In pursuance of the said online advertisement, the petitioners were found successful bidder, who after completing all the requisite formalities as well as depositing the security money through R.T.G.S., allotted work orders on 17.8.2020. In pursuance of the contract, petitioners entered into an agreement with Nagar Panchayat, Majhauli Raj, Deoria in which it was specifically provided that the work should be completed within the stipulated time as mentioned in the agreement. A complaint was made by one Arvind Kumar Sharma on 17.8.2020 before the District Magistrate, Deoria on the basis of which an inquiry was conducted and in pursuance of inquiry report dated 2.9.2020, exparte impugned order has been passed cancelling the e- tender of the petitioners. Hence the present writ petition has been filed.
Sri Verma, learned Senior Counsel submits that in pursuance of e-tender, the petitioners were successful bidder and after completing due formalities, they entered into an agreement with the respondent authority. He further submits that works which were allotted to the petitioners, were being completed within the consented time. But on the frivolous complaint dated 17.8.2020 against the petitioners, the District Magistrate had conducted an exparte inquiry behind the back of the petitioners and on the basis of exparte inquiry report dated 2.9.2020, passed the exparte impugned order cancelling the e- notification / e-advertisement itself. He further submits that neither any opportunity has been given to the petitioners before submission of inquiry report nor notices were given before passing the exparte impugned order dated 19.9.2020. Therefore, the action taken by the respondents is not justified in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has tried to justify the impugned order and action of the respondents.
The Court has perused the records.
On perusal of records, it reveals that petitioners were being successful bidder allotted work orders after completing due formalities. Time is the essence and in pursuance of the contract, the petitioners were required to complete the work within the stipulated time as fixed in the agreement. The petitioners started to complete the work assigned to them as works were to be completed within two months. If any complaint was received by respondent-2 on the basis of which inquiry was initiated, the petitioners ought to have been given notice before passing the impugned order dated 19.9.2020. The records also reveal that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing were given to the petitioners to justify their case. It is well settled that if any adverse action is taken against any person, then at least an opportunity must be provided to him. In the present case, no opportunity whatsoever has been provided to the petitioners before passing the impugned order.
In view of aforesaid facts, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.9.2020 is set aside. The respondents are directed to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 8.1.2021 Rahul Dwivedi/-