Case Note & Summary
The present writ petition arose from a dispute over a consultancy contract for preparation of a Detailed Project Report (DPR) and Project Management Consultant (PMC) work for a water supply scheme under the Maharashtra Suvarn Jayanti Nagarotthan Mahabhiyan (MSJNM). The petitioner, a sole proprietorship firm, was selected by respondent No.4 Nagar Panchayat, Bodwad after an e-tender process. Initially negotiated rate was 3.5% of total project cost, but later reduced to 3% due to government policy. The work order was issued on 24.05.2018 with a six-month completion period. The petitioner claimed that respondent No.4 failed to supply necessary data, including water reservation resolutions and population density data, causing delay. Despite submitting DPR plans on 01.01.2019, respondent No.4 did not give approval or release payment, and later Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran raised objections which respondent No.4 took six months to remove. On 24.09.2020, respondent No.4 issued a show-cause notice alleging failure to get DPR approved, and on 01.10.2020 General Body passed resolutions rejecting extension and cancelling the work order, with intimation on 13.10.2020. The petitioner first filed Writ Petition No.530 of 2021 before the High Court but withdrew it to pursue statutory remedy under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeal by order dated 29.06.2022. Hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the Collector's order, the resolutions, cancellation of work order, and directions for extension of time and release of Rs.59,53,000 with interest. The legal issues involved maintainability of the writ petition in view of alternate remedy under Section 318, and the legality of cancellation of work order on grounds of natural justice and attribution of delay. The petitioner argued that respondent No.4's own defaults caused delay and it could not take advantage of its own wrong, relying on Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav. Respondent No.4 contended that the petition was barred by alternate remedy and that the petitioner failed to complete the work within time. Respondent No.5, the subsequent agency, pleaded ignorance of prior events. The High Court heard the parties and reserved judgment on 29 January 2024, pronouncing on 15 April 2024. The provided excerpt ends during the arguments and does not include the final operative order or ratio decidendi.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Writ Petition - Maintainability and Alternate Remedy - Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965, Sections 308, 318 - Respondent No.4 contended that the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy of revision under Section 318 before the State Government against the Collector's order dated 29.06.2022. The petitioner had earlier withdrawn Writ Petition No.530 of 2021 to avail statutory remedy and the High Court's earlier order kept liberty to challenge the Collector's order. The court heard arguments on whether the writ petition should be entertained despite availability of revision under Section 318 (Paras 4, 6-7). B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Cancellation of Work Order and Rejection of Extension - Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965, Section 308 - The petitioner contended that respondent No.4's General Body passed resolutions rejecting extension and cancelling work order without affording personal hearing as requested; the online meeting link was not provided to the petitioner. The petitioner alleged gross violation of principles of natural justice and that the action was contrary to record. The court considered these contentions while hearing the petition (Paras 3, 6). C) Legal Maxims - Ex Injuria Jus Non Oritur - Doctrine Against Taking Advantage of One's Own Wrong - No specific Act - The petitioner relied on Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav to argue that respondent No.4 could not take advantage of its own failure to supply basic data and delay in removing administrative objections. The court noted the authorities cited for the principle that a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls and a person cannot claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing (Paras 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of revision under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965; whether the cancellation of petitioner's work order and rejection of extension by respondent No.4 was arbitrary, in violation of natural justice; whether the petitioner was responsible for delay in obtaining approval of Detailed Project Report from competent authority.
Law Points
- A person cannot take advantage of his own wrong
- alternate remedy under Section 318 of Maharashtra Municipal Councils
- Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act
- 1965 may bar writ jurisdiction
- principles of natural justice require fair hearing before cancellation of contract
- foundational illegality vitiates subsequent actions
