- (1.) This petition seeks the quashing of the communications dated 6 October 2015 by which the supply orders dated 28 May 2015 issued to the petitioner by the Defence Materials Store Research and Development Establishment in the Government of India, Ministry of Defence (the DMSRDE) for supply of chemicals have been cancelled. The petitioner has also sought a direction for payment of the bills submitted against the materials supplied to the DMSRDE pursuant to the earlier work orders.
(2.) It is stated that the petitioner is registered as an approved Supplier/Contractor. An order dated 28 May 2015 was issued to the petitioner for supply of chemicals and the delivery period was 31 July 2015. The petitioner made a request for extension of the delivery period upto 31 March 2015. This request was accepted and the period of supply was extended upto 31 March 2015. Likewise, two separate work orders each dated 28 May 2015 were issued to the petitioner for supply of chemicals and the time period for supply was also extended subsequently. It is alleged that on 8 October 2015, the authorised agent of the petitioner wanted to deliver the items mentioned in the work orders but he was not permitted to do so. It is also stated that the petitioner incurred huge expenditure of Rs.30,54,010/- towards the cost of chemicals and Rs.1,52,700/- towards VAT as also the transport charges. Ultimately, the petitioner was informed by letters dated 6 October 2015 that the supply orders should be treated as cancelled due to unavoidable circumstances. This petition has, accordingly, been filed for quashing the decisions taken to cancel the supply orders.
(3.) Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Mohd. Afzal has submitted that the work orders have been cancelled without providing any opportunity to the petitioner and that they do not also contain reasons. It is his submission that the petitioner had incurred huge expenditure on purchasing the materials for supply and, therefore, the DMSRDE was not justified in cancelling the work orders without any reason. The principle of promissory estoppel has, therefore, been pressed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.;