M/S. Agros Impex Ind... v. The State Of Jharkha...

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.:— The instant matter arose on termination of the Agreement dated 30.04.2012 executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand for execution of the work of supply and affixation of High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) throughout the State in all the districts. The order of termination is dated 13.08.2012 Petitioner was also blacklisted by letter dated 04.09.2012 The parties are at contest on the merits of the matter relating to performance of reciprocal promises by them.

2. Arguments have been advanced on the part of the petitioner as well as the respondent State. It has transpired during course of the argument that the Agreement in question contains a structured method of resolution of disputes in connection with the contract. It also provides for penal consequences in the nature of liquidated damages, forfeitures of security deposit and also termination of contract for the delay caused by the contractor in performance of his contractual obligation. Relevant clauses of the Agreement are Clause-25 to 31 and 38.

3. It has also transpired during course of argument that after termination of the Agreement with the petitioner, the respondent State issued fresh tenders twice for execution of the work with a new party. The first tender after termination of the instant contract was reportedly aborted. The second tender ended up in issuance of letters of intent in favour of the private respondent herein on 08.01.2013 However, though the letter of intent stipulated that the Agreement has to be entered within ten days, but no such Agreement could be executed thereafter for the reasons which need not be gone into for the present. In essence, the work of such a technical nature in respect of embossing and affixing of HSRP throughout the State in furtherance of the statutory mandate under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2001, could not be implemented in the State, till date.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has, on instruction, submitted that the petitioner is still ready to execute the work, of course, subject to certain modification, as may be required because of elapse of time.

5. However, there is another aspect which also needs to be taken note of at this stage. The nature of work involved for embossing, affixation of High Security Registration Plates requires a very high technology which obviously should be full proof, fail safe and not vulnerable to any copying, duplication or imitation.

6. Considering the nature of the work and structure of the Agreement entered into between the parties, it is felt appropriate that before making a final adjudication on the merits of the matter, the competent authority under the respondent State Government may consider whether the areas of differences and disputes between the parties can be worked out as per structure provided under the Agreement itself for execution of the work. During consideration of the matter, the respondent authorities would also take into account whether the technology and the nature of work conceived under the Agreement in question, is time tested, fail safe and still worthy of execution. If answer on this issue is in affirmative, then the question of working out the agreement itself, is required to be gone into. The nature of work, as it appears, may involve the interplay of other departments as well, apart from the parent Transport Department such as I.T Department or the Building Department as questions of software, interface, availability of space, etc. may also be required to be taken into account.

7. Keeping in mind these aspects, it is therefore deemed appropriate to request the Chief Secretary of the State to have deliberation on the matter with the officials of the concerned departments on the issue and arrive at an opinion. It will be open to the respondent authorities to call the petitioner for informal or formal discussion on any issue relating to the matter.

8. In view of the considerable exercise that may be required, learned Government Advocate Mr. Rajesh Shankar prays for six weeks time. However, for the said purpose, four weeks time is allowed.

9. List the case on 10.12.2015

10. Let a copy of the order be handed over to the learned Government Advocate.