TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1602
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....015 preferred by the appellants, whereas the cross-appeal preferred by the respondent being LPAOW No. 21 of 2015 was dismissed. 2. The brief controversy presented for adjudication in these appeals is whether the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, was entitled to entertain a dispute which was purely civil in nature filed for claiming monetary relief/damages arising from fallout of contractual obligations. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of these appeals are that the appellant-Municipal Committee, Katra issued a Notice Inviting Tender(hereinafter being referred to as 'NIT') dated 3rd March, 2010 inviting bids for supply of mules and mazdoors essentially involved in transportation of pilgrims from the base camp at Katra to holy shrine of Mata Vaishno Devi, atop the Trikuta hill. Several bids were received in response to the said NIT. The respondent herein was the second highest bidder, who subsequently became the highest bidder, as Shri Pritam Das, the original highest bidder did not come forward to execute the contract. Accordingly, the contract came to be offered to the respondent who accepted the offer so given. The tenure of the contract as per NIT w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he work and collected the revenue for the period commencing from 10th May, 2010 till 7th April, 2011(time of one week extended under orders of the High Court). After conclusion of the contract period, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court being OWP No. 743 of 2013 contending that his contract was supposed to commence from 1st April, 2010 and was to run for a period of 365 days till 31st March, 2011. However, the said period was truncated because the same could be commenced from 10th May, 2010 only and hence, the respondent suffered a loss of collection of earnings for a period of 33 days. He, therefore, claimed pro-rata amount of Rs. 71,06,276/- being the purported loss suffered on account of the curtailment of the contract period by 33 days. The learned Single Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 3rd July, 2013, disposed of the writ petition, OWP No.743 of 2013 with a direction to the appellants herein to consider the claim of the respondent within six weeks from the date of the order. 9. The claim of the respondent was laid before the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Katra who rejected the same vide order dated 12th August, 2013 which was subject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y for the reason that petitioner himself was at fault for not fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Auction Notice. 15. Point sought to be demonstrated on behalf of the respondents is that petitioner by not issuing post dated cheques and bank guarantee to secure the payment of remaining 60% of the total auction amount was responsible for non-issue of allotment letter and allotment of contract in his favour up to 10.05.2011 and therefore is not entitled to claim recovery of proportionate auction amount. 16. It admits of no doubt that petitioner himself was responsible for delay in allotment of contract in his favour resulting into his inability to collect the revenue for initial period of 39 days, that is, from 01.04.2010 to 09.05.2010. Respondents cannot be said to have committed any wrong, illegality or breach of contract in not issuing allotment letter and allotting the contract to the petitioner from 01.04.2010 up to 09.05.2010. It was with the intervention and under the interim directions of this Court on 07.05.2010(supra) that the respondent No. 3 allotted the contract in favour of the petitioner on 10.05.2010 and he performed under the same up to 7. 4. 2011. This, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the order passed by learned Single Bench and a direction upon the appellant to refund the total amount of Rs.71,06,276/- along with interest at 12% per annum without making any deductions, stand rejected by common judgment and final order dated 30th September, 2013. These orders are subjected to challenge at the instance of Municipal Committee, Katra and its officials in these appeals by special leave. 14. Learned counsel Shri Pashupathi Nath Razdan appearing on behalf of the appellants urged that admittedly, the respondent was responsible for non-issuance of the work order because he did not comply with the mandatory requirements contained in Clause-8 of NIT. Despite having participated in the auction proceedings with open eyes, the respondent pursuant to his second highest bid being accepted, challenged the conditions contained in Clause-8 of the NIT, by filing a civil suit. Owing to the reluctance shown by the respondent in accepting the tender conditions, the appellants herein were contemplating to quash the tender and to issue a fresh auction notice, but in compliance of the order dated 7th May, 2010, passed by the High Court, the work order dated 10th May, 2010 was awarde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntained in Clause-8 of NIT before participating in the auction proceedings. It was also not disputed that the delay in issuance of the work order was purely attributable to the respondent who avoided complying with the conditions in Clause-8 of the auction notice and dragged the proceedings to litigation. 17. We have considered the submissions advanced at bar and have perused the material available on record and have gone through the impugned judgments. 18. The situation at hand is squarely covered by the latin maxim 'nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria', which means that no man can take advantage of his own wrong. This principle was applied by this Court in the case of Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav (1996) 4 SCC 127 observing as below: - "28. ...In this behalf, the maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria - meaning no man can take advantage of his own wrong - squarely stands in the way of avoidance by the respondent and he is estopped to plead bar of limitation contained in Section 123(2). In Broom's Legal Maxim (10th Edn.) at p. 191 it is stated: "... it is a maxim of law, recognised and established, that no man shall tak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issuance of the work order. The matter was taken to the High Court and the appellants gave a clear indication before the High Court that they were proposing to hold a fresh auction. However, during pendency of appeal before the High Court, an order dated 7th May, 2010 came to be passed whereby, the appellants were directed to award the work to the respondent being L-2. 21. We feel that once the respondent-writ petitioner had participated in the tender process being fully conscious of the terms and conditions of the auction notice, he was estopped from taking a U-turn so as to question the legality or validity of the terms and conditions of the auction notice. By dragging the matter to litigation, the respondent himself was responsible for the delay occasioned in issuance of the work order which deprived him of the opportunity to work for the entire period of 365 days. 22. Furthermore, the relief which was sought by the respondent in the writ petition was purely by way of damages. By no stretch of imagination, such relief could have been subject matter of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The quantification of the....