WPMS/2542/2020 of SHARMA ENGINEERS A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 31 December 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2542 of 2020

Sharma Engineers. …..Petitioner

Versus

Sate of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents Mr. Shashank Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

Dated: 31[st] December, 2020

Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

2. This writ petition has been filed by Sharma Engineers, which is a sole proprietorship firm based at Dehradun.

3. Petitioner responded to a Notice Inviting Tender issued by Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Circle, Dehradun for the work of “maintenance/ operation of 33/11 KV Sub Stations, associated HT/LT lines, attending breakdowns & complaints of consumers under EDD, Mohanpur against O&M head”.

4. According to the petitioner, in addition to him, there was only one more bidder, namely, respondent no. 4, whose technical bid was found to be responsive. Since respondent no. 4 was found to be the lowest bidder, therefore, his financial bid was accepted and decision was taken to award the contract for the aforesaid work. Under the contract, the contractor is required to provide manpower for maintenance/

operation of power Sub Stations, High Tension/Low Tension lines etc.

5. Petitioner has challenged the decision taken by respondent no. 3 to award contract to respondent no. 4, on the ground that it is in violation of Section 25 of the Contract, Act, 1872. To be more precise, the ground of challenge is that since respondent no. 4 has not claimed any service charge/profit in his bid for supply of manpower, therefore, the agreement, which will be eventually executed between respondent nos. 3 & 4, will be without consideration, therefore, void.

6. The rates quoted by respondent no. 4, in his financial bid, are given in tabular form, which is reproduced below:

7. From perusal of the aforesaid table, it is apparent that respondent no. 4 has not agreed to provide manpower gratuitously or without claiming any money. The amount, which he claimed as wages for the manpower, EPF contribution and ESI contribution, constitutes valid consideration for entering into a contract.

8. Government and its agencies award different kinds of contracts for supply of goods and services and also for civil construction work. Many a times, contractors quote such rates in their financial bid due to competition that they are not able to make any profit or may incur losses in providing goods/services at such low rates. Such contract cannot be repudiated even at the instance of the concerned contractor on the ground that the consideration is inadequate. Inadequacy of consideration is an aspect, which the Court should take into account, in case of challenge by the concerned contractor; while, considering whether his consent was freely given or not.

9. In the present case, respondent no. 4 has not made any complaint that his consent was not freely given. The ground taken by the petitioner is available only to respondent no. 4 and not to the petitioner, who is totally a stranger to the contract.

10.

10. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter.

11. Thus, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Arpan

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 31.12.2020