Facts of the Case

M/s Uma Ram And Sons, a proprietorship, had been awarded Tender No. 32 (Year 2021-22) for electrification work at CHC Kelansar, District Jodhpur, by the Executive Engineer, Medical and Health Department. The tender was later rescinded via NIT No. 46 (Year 2022-23) dated 27.03.2023. The petitioner challenged the rescission and sought payment of outstanding dues for the work already completed, along with interest at 12% per annum, and also sought to be allowed to complete the work at increased material and GST rates. At the hearing, the petitioner's counsel made a limited submission confined to payment of dues for work already completed before the rescission.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment for the portion of electrification work already completed before the tender was rescinded.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • For work completed before the tender's rescission, outstanding dues should be paid as per the tender conditions.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The tender had been rescinded under Clause/Section 32 of the agreement due to delay attributable to the petitioner-firm in completing the civil work; no other liability was cast on the department.
  • Since the earlier firm became reluctant to perform, separate fresh tenders had since been issued for the remaining work.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court directed the petitioner-firm to submit bills for the work already completed, based on measurements maintained by the respondents themselves.
  • On submission of such bills, the respondents were directed to consider them and make necessary payment within three months, strictly in accordance with law.
  • The writ petition, along with all pending applications, was disposed of on this basis.

Important Clarification

This is a government tender/contract dispute, not a GST ruling. The petitioner's prayer for being allowed to complete work at 'increased market rate of material & GST' reflects only that GST is charged as part of a contractor's billed rate — the Court did not decide any GST rate or applicability question; it limited itself to directing payment for already-completed work based on actual measurements.

Sections Involved

  • Public Works/Tender agreement clauses (contractual, not statutory GST provisions)
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction

Decision – In Favour of

Decided partly in favour of the petitioner — the tender rescission itself was not set aside, but the respondents were directed to process and pay bills for work already completed within three months.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
  • Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4595 of 2023
  • Coram: Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati
  • Date of Order: 16 May 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.