JASODA ROADLINES Vs. ORISSA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner no.1-M/s. Jasoda Roadlines, a proprietorship firm having its registered office at Santia, PO/PS- Jaleswar, Dist.- Balasore, Odisha, is engaged in the business of handling and transportation, and petitioner no.2 is its proprietor. They have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (OSWC) issued a notice inviting e-tender on 30.01.2019 for appointment of regular handling and transportation contractor of food grain stock at various locations for a period of two years. Subsequently, the Corporation issued a corrigendum to the e-tender on 13.02.2019 with certain changes. The said tender notice comprised of seven zones with 21 locations and in the process the petitioner no.1 was declared L1 and successful bidder in respect of nine locations, namely Jagatpur (Internal, Jatani (Internal and RH), Dumerpani (Internal and RH), A. Katapali (Internal and RH), Nagenpali-I (Internal and RH), Nagenpali-II (Internal and RH), Kendpali (Internal and RH), Attabira (Internal and RH) and Godbhaga (Internal and RH). In those nine locations, the price and quantity of materials were different, for which separate agreements in the nature of work order for specific locations were drawn for administrative convenience. But in the work order it has been specified that the terms and conditions of the MTF would be applicable. On 21.05.2019, the Corporation issued a common work order in favour of petitioner no.1- contractor whereby it was to operate FCI stocks at nine locations.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing along with Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence contending that the order of termination dated 25.04.2020 passed by the Managing Director, Odisha State Warehousing Corporation, Bhubaneswar is not only arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal but also suffers from gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that even though there is availability of alternative remedy by way of arbitration clause, that itself cannot preclude this Court to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the allegation made against petitioner no.1-contractor relates to contract of Kendpali, but by issuing the impugned order dated 25.04.2020 all the 9 contracts have been cancelled without due compliance of the principles of natural justice, although each contract is separate, as would be evident from the agreements and the work orders. As such, there is no breach of terms and conditions of the contract, therefore, the termination of the same without any rhyme or reason is illegal apart from being arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of natural justice. So far it relates to contract of Kendpali, the show-cause notice did not mention the particular clause for breach of which the notice was issued. If clause-XXI of MTF is taken into consideration as a whole, though same has been referred as part in the order of termination, no case is made out against petitioner no.1-contractor. It is further contended that the power vested with the Managing Director in clause-XI ought to be exercised judiciously. Therefore, if the action taken by the opposite parties is arbitrary and unreasonable and exercised in a contractual matter, that deserves to be set aside. It is further contended that though MTF contains arbitration clause, which is to be exercised by way of alternative remedy, but that itself is not an absolute bar to adjudicate the matter in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.