STATE OF U.P v. SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH & Ors.

1.6 The submission that as respondent no.1 is working for the Corporation in another subsequent tender, he is not going to claim damages for the lost period post cancellation of the tender is reiterated. This being the case, and other things being equal, the earnest money deposit and security deposit made by him is ordered to be returned by the Corporation within a period of eight weeks from today. He may also request the Corporation to pay any amount that remained unpaid for work actually done, which the Corporation will, after a hearing, either allow or reject for reasons to be stated. The appeals arising out of SLP (C) 5136 of 2020 and SLP (C) 7351 of 2020 are thus partially allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 11.12.2019 is set aside only to the extent indicated. [Paras 42, 43][620-C-E]

1.7 Insofar as the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 7364 of 2020 is concerned, the facts therein are distinct from the other two connected appeals before this Court only to the extent that Respondent No.1 therein, M/s Dharam Raj Singh, was the successful bidder for the Tendu (Sonbhadra) region, which award of tender was also cancelled by the Corporation’s order dated 26.07.2019. The judgment impugned in this appeal, dated 07.01.2020 of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), allowed M/s Dharam Raj Singh’s writ petition challenging the cancellation order, stating that it was to be governed by the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 11.12.2019. As a result, the judgment in the two connected appeals, and all consequential reliefs granted, will apply on all fours to this appeal also. [Para 44][620-F-G] ABL International Ltd. and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. [2004] A B C D E F G H STATE OF U.P. v. SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. 577 3 SCC 553; Food Corp. of India and Anr. v. SEIL Ltd. and Ors.(2008) 3 SCC 440 : [2008] 1 SCR 663; Central Bank of India v. Devi Ispat Ltd. and Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 186 : [2010] 9 SCR 417; Surya Constructions v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2019) 16 SCC 794; Verigamto Naveen v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 344 : 2001 ( 3 ) Suppl. SCR 112; Rishi Kiran Logistics v. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port and Ors. (2015) 13 SCC 233 : [2014] 5 SCR 411; Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India and Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 728 : [2015] 6 SCR 1042; Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Dy. Comm. Of Central Excise, Gauhati and Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 519 : [2015] 6 SCR 437; State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 972; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 237 : [1999] 3 SCR 1173; Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan (2000) 7 SCC 529; 2000 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 684; Union of India and Ors. v. Alok Kumar (2010) 5 SCC 349 : [2010] 5 SCR 35 – relied on. Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 492: [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 421; Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Ors. (2007) 14 SCC 517; Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v.State of Karnataka and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 216 :[ 2012] 8 SCR 128; Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 : [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 122; Rajasthan State Housing Board and Anr. v. G.S. Investments and Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 477 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 868 – distinguished.