M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) IT is a case where tender was floated by the respondent -corporation for transportation of LPG Cylinders from Ex -Ajmer. The petitioners along with others participated therein. After opening technical bid, financial bid was opened and the petitioner being lowest bidder was given work order on 16.04.2014. After the aforesaid, the order was passed by the respondents to cancel/terminate the contract and for that purposes, a notice was given on 23.09.2013, which is impugned herein. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after issuance of work order, the respondents had no authority to cancel/terminate the contract unilaterally. It is moreso when it is not a consequence of any default in working of the petitioner or violation of terms and conditions of the agreement. The unilateral act of the respondents is discriminatory in nature as the reason for cancellation/termination of the contract is due to some discrepancy in tender document though based on same conditions, contract was awarded and has been maintained for other routes like ex -Jhunjhunu, Jaipur, etc. In view of the above, the impugned order may be set aside. The petitioners are plying trucks during the intervening period under old contract and otherwise the contract is for one year which is going to lapse in the month of April, 2014 though with mutual consent, it is extendable by two years.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that after floating tender and issuance of work order, the respondents felt discrepancy in the tender document inasmuch as number of trucks were inducted without capacity. The respondent -Corporation was to hire trucks having capacity to carry 306 and 450 cylinders. The bifurcation aforesaid was not made thus committee was constituted and as per decision of the committee, notice was given to terminate the contract. So far as other contracts are concerned, similar action was not taken for the reason that participants in the tender documents were equivalent to the size required thus action of the respondent is not in discrimination. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondents has referred judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier & Ann v. Northeast Frontier Railway & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 0751/2013, decided on 29th November, 2013. Therein, similar claim as made by the petitioner was not accepted by Hon'ble Apex Court;