Sunday, 1 May 2011

SHIMNIT UTSCH’S PETITION DISMISSED BY HIGH COURT

PANJIM: The high court of Bombay at Goa has dismissed a petition filed by Shimnit Utsch India Private Limited challenging the termination of its contract awarded by the Goa government to affix high security registration plates (HSRP) on vehicles.
On January 25, this year, the transport director had terminated Shimnit's contract signed by the government and the petitioner in 2008. The government had invited bids in 2005 for implementation of the HSRP project in the state for 15 years.
While rejecting the petition, a division bench of justices S C Dharmadhikari and F M Reis observed: "We are of the view that the writ petition is not an appropriate remedy for the petitioner. The petitioner will have to question the termination notice by recourse to ordinary remedies (not before the high court). It will not be possible to render any conclusive finding in our limited jurisdiction and purely on the basis of affidavits."
During the hearing of the case, Shimnit's lawyer V Dhond argued that the order terminating the concession agreement was "wholly arbitrary and erroneous". He pointed out that the contract was entered into for implementing a statutory duty and a statutory scheme. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be told to take recourse to ordinary remedy by going to the civil court or for arbitration, said Dhond.
Advocate general Subodh Kantak countered that the petition is not maintainable before the hight court as it involves disputed questions of facts. While stating that the contract is not a statutory contract, Kantak said that the company can seek damages and compensation by approaching the appropriate forum or the civil court for termination of the contract.
It may be recalled that a committee constituted to review the HSRP scheme in Goa, had recommended the revocation of the contract. The committee had noted that the finalization of the tendering process in respect of the HSRP scheme had been vitiated. It observed that the petitioner had also violated a condition by changing the ownership of the company without seeking prior government permission.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.