Municipal Council Gondia v. Divi Works and Suppliers, HUF & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 1538 of 2022
FACTS- The Appellant, a Municipal Council (MC) runs an educational institution and required benches, almirah and tables for the school. For this the appellant issued a tender and invited bids. The respondent Divi Works was declared successful bidder and was awarded the contract and agreement was executed between the parties. But due to the Covid-19 Pandemic the Government of Maharashtra published a notification dated 04.05.20 which stated that non-priority expenditure impacting government finances must not be incurred resultantly, the work order of Divi Works was suspended. Being aggrieved with the said notification Divi Works filed writ under Article 226 in High Court and the court gave judgement in favor of Divi Works and issued the Writ of Mandamus directing the MC to make the payment and take the supply. Being aggrieved with the said judgment the appellant/ MC approached the Supreme Court.
BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – The Supreme Court heard the said case on 7.02.22 and passed the order that members of municipal council must visit the place where manufactured goods are kept and identify the goods of immediate requirement and set a schedule for balance goods and make payments accordingly.
The members did the same, but the goods were not prepared as per the requirement of the MC, additionally, the respondent/contractor has admitted vide communication dated 18.02.22 that goods were not available. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that as no goods are available there is no question of acceptance. Further, on behalf of the respondent it was submitted that goods were dismantled for purpose storage and for maintenance and were kept in storage at Nagpur.
RATIO & DECISION-
No Writ of Mandamus could have been issued virtually granting the writ for specific performance of contract/work order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Nothing was placed on record before the High Court to show that goods were manufactured. In absence of evidence and there being disputed question of facts and there being disputed questions of facts High Court ought not have passed such an order to accept goods and make payments.
