M/S. Chauhan Associates vs Uoi And Ors. on 9 July, 2018



1. The appellant M/s. Chauhan Associates (hereafter referred as
“Chauhan”), an enlisted contractor with the Military Engineering Services
(i.e. the respondent, hereafter referred to as “MES”) is aggrieved by the
impugned judgment of a learned Single Judge which declined to set aside
notification, issuing the Work Load Report (hereafter referred to as “the
WLR”) dated 30th May, 2017. The impugned WLR has the effect of
impeding the award of any fresh contract, till a favourable report is prepared
by the relevant authorities of the MES.
2. Chauhan is engaged in the business of work contracting; it was
enlisted by the MES in 2010. The MES is a department under the control of
the Union Ministry of Defence which has been arrayed as second

LPA 553/2017 Page 1 of 12
respondent; first respondent is the Union of India. Chauhan was awarded a
contract for ` 12,47,04,662/- and a work order in that regard was issued on
05.08.2016. The work order indicated the date of handing/taking over of site
of Phase I as 10.08.2016 and Phase II after completion of Phase I. The
related date of commencement of the Phases of the contract depended upon
the handing over/taking over of the sites. Completion of the work under
Phase I was 09.08.2017 and Phase II was 60 months after physical
completion of Phase I. It is alleged that MES was unable to handover the
site duly on time for Chauhan to commence work and could do so partially
on 22.11.2016. Chauhan alleges further that before this event it had sought
approval (of MES) for HT and LT Panels, Transformers, LT and HT Cables
and other equipments on which it did not take action. It apparently replied
much latter, i.e. after six months on 20.03.2017. According to Chauhan,
without approval it was not permissible for it to commence work on the even
partially provided site. Apart from the delayed handing over of site and
delayed approval, the contract specified a single make for supply of sewer
pipes; however, the manufacturer mentioned in the contract was not in fact
producing the products. These defects, according to Chauhan, were apprised
to MES on 08.03.2017. Further, Chauhan alleges that there were numerous
other difficulties and the MES adopted a go slow approach and also did not
clear pending payments to accelerate the work at the site. In this
background, Chauhan alleges that when MES applied for fresh tender for
other works in its portal in May, 2017, Chauhan found place in the list of
firms not eligible to participate. Chauhan was apprised then that the slow
progress of work in the contract was a reason for its listing or debarment; it
claims to have represented to MES on 04.06.2017 against the move to bar

LPA 553/2017 Page 2 of 12
award on further contracts. A show cause notice was issued to it, why it
ought not to be banned by the MES, on 13.06.2017. Chauhan caused a legal
notice to be issued on 21.06.2017. Chauhan attempted to apply for fresh
tender in respect of work but was unsuccessful and one application was
rejected on 11.07.2017, aggrieved by it approached this Court by filing
WP(C) 6244/2017.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply