In a recent legal case, the High Court delved into the intricacies of a contract for the supply of E-learning kits. The court’s analysis focused on the obligations of the parties involved, shedding light on the importance of thorough scrutiny in cases of public interest. The decision highlights the need for a detailed examination of contractual terms and the implications for all parties. Let’s dive into the legal intricacies of the case and understand the court’s perspective on the matter.
Facts
- The High Court was informed that the Headmaster of the school is responsible for the supply and installation of kits, which had been done.
- The High Court directed respondent No.4 to gather details on similar systems supplied to other Zilla Parishads and their prices.
- An inquiry was promised on 07.12.2015 and a report was to be submitted.
- Respondent No.5 was disqualified in the tender process, and the order was placed with the appellant.
- Affidavit of Mr. Ruchesh Jaivanshi, CEO, Zilla Parishad was presented.
- The appellant is challenging the order dated 24.02.2018 from the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.4789 of 2014.
- The e-tender was republished on 13.06.2014 due to discrepancies, and the appellant was awarded the supply order for E-learning Kits to 22 Zilla Parishad Schools.
- An inquiry report was submitted, and the appellant responded with additional written submission.
- Respondent No.5 filed a writ petition due to being disqualified in the tender process.
- The High Court directed State of Maharashtra and CEO of Zilla Parishad to recover amounts paid to the appellant.
- The case, although considered in public interest, requires scrutiny of contractual obligations between the parties involved.
- Zilla Parishad, Washim issued an e-tender notice for purchasing E-learning kits under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan scheme.
- High Court assumed foul play due to suppliers participating in both places
- Directed State Government and CEO of Zilla Parishad to recover amounts paid to appellant
- Appellant aggrieved by direction to recover amount despite supplying kits
- High Court did not entertain writ petition on tender process disqualification due to disputed facts
- Took cognizance in public interest due to hasty release of amount
- Opinion to conduct inquiry into handling of matter by former CEO
- Noted contentions of business competitor on discrepancies in procurement prices
- Ordered parties to maintain status-quo and serve respondents
- Observed similar supplies made to schools under Zilla Parishad in Gadchiroli by same CEO
Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC: A Critical Analysis
Analysis
- The appellant is obligated to perform the supply order despite the status quo order from the High Court.
- The writ petition deemed to be in public interest was actually initiated by a rival business competitor who lost in the tender process.
- The appellant must fulfill the requirements of the supply order including issuing certificates from the School Management Committee.
- The appellant is responsible for software updates and teacher training as agreed in the contract.
- If fulfilling the software update and training is not feasible, a proportionate amount will be deducted.
- The High Court’s order for complete payment recall is deemed excessive as the equipment is already installed.
- The genesis of the petition was a challenge to the tender process, wherein the appellant succeeded and received the supply order.
- The High Court’s directive for recovery of payments and filing complaints is premature without proper analysis.
- The High Court did not dispute the supply completion by the appellant or the installation process.
- Despite the inquiry report findings related to various Zilla Parishads’ purchases, the High Court made premature decisions without proper analysis.
- The State Government conducted an inquiry based on the petitioner’s claims, leading to an inquiry report filed in court.
- Regardless of the proceedings, the appellant must comply with the terms of the supply order to avoid potential actions by the official respondents.
- Liberty reserved for the appellant to avail remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate forum if any grievance
- Upgradation of software agreed under the contract to be completed
- Mr. Ruchesh Jaivanshi, then CEO of Zilla Parishad, was before the Court in SLP 13869/2018
- Supply of E-learning kits being of different types, further details needed for comparison which is left to official respondents
- Withdrawal of the payment to the appellant and restraint against balance payment without considering technical details not justified
- Liberty reserved to respondent No.4 to provide opportunity to appellant and Zilla Parishad to take stock of actual supplies
- An appropriate conclusion to be reached on whether payment made is commensurate to supplies as per contract terms
- If upgradation and training completed and appellant justifies balance payment, no impediment to release the same
Also Read: Validity of Debt and Enforcement of Section 138 NI Act
Decision
- All proceedings referred in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment will involve the participation of the petitioner
- Proceedings will be conducted on their own merits without being influenced by any observations in the impugned judgment
- The order applies to proceedings related to the action contemplated against the then CEO
- No costs are awarded
- Actions concerning the appellant party will follow the indicated manner
- The appeal is allowed with the specified conditions
- Pending applications, if any, are disposed of
- The High Court order dated 24.02.2018 is set aside as it is not sustainable
Also Read: Enlargement on Bail in Illegal Mining Case
Case Title: MULTITASK SOLUTIONS Vs. ZILA PARISHAD WASHIM (2021 INSC 409)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004823-004823 / 2021
