High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Karan Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. - 42778 of 2007  RD-AH 15140 (7 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42778 of 2007
1. Karan Singh, son of Shri Har Narain Singh resident of 257, Ganesh Ganj, Orai, District Jalaun.
1. State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary, Anubhag-2 Public Works Department, Lucknow.
2. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi
3. District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai
4. Executive Engineer, Prantiya Khand, Public Works Department, Orai District Jalaun
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Prasad
Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Suresh Singh, Standing Counsel
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar,J
Date: September 7, 2007
1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Prasad in support of this petition. Mr. Suresh Singh, learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has been awarded a contract of collecting the toll on a Bridge on Gohani Nala situate on National Highway No. 25 in district Jalaun.
3. Now it so happened that a diversion of the city road is going on whereby the traffic on this Bridge has increased, considerably. It appears that the diversion is going to be there for quite some time. The revenue of the petitioner having increased, the State Authorities looking into this aspect appointed a Committee and the Committee noted that the revenue of the Bridge having gone up, if the terms of the tender under which the contract was awarded have undergone a change, the contract entered into between the petitioner and the authorities of the Government can be terminated. The Government has the power to either reduce the period of the contract and or to terminate it. Clause 25 clearly provides for the power to reduce the term and in that event, the contractor will not have any right to claim for compensation. The orders dated 4.8.2007 and 14.8.2007 have been passed whereby the authority of the petitioner has been terminated. The petitioner is aggrieved by that orders and therefore this writ petition is filed.
4. Mr. Mukesh Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of cancellation states that the petitioner is not responsible for the diversion. He submits that there is no such authority to terminate on that part. In view of what is stated above, we are not in agreement with him, though applicant may not be responsible for the diversion. The clause clearly provides for termination. With full understanding, the petitioner had entered into the contract.
5. This is not a case where any advance payment is made by the petitioner at the time of award of the contract. The petitioner collects the toll amount and passes over the appropriate requisite amount to the authorities of the State. This cannot be a case of promissory estoppel that the petitioner should be continued to run the contract. We do not find any error in the order of termination.
6. The petition is dismissed.
RK/ (Chief Justice)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.