[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
M/S Netwind Softlabs Pvt. Ltd. Having … vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief … on 26 August, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:25257-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3360 of 2025
---
M/s Netwind Softlabs Pvt. Ltd. having its office at GL-2, STPI
Building, Namkom, District- Ranchi through its Director Navneet
Sahai, son of Awani Dhar Sahai, resident of Sahai Sadan, Lohra
Kocha, H.B. Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Jamshedpur Notified
Area Committee, Sakchi, Jamshedpur
3. The Special Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee,
Sakchi, Jamshedpur
4. The Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control
Board, Ranchi
5. Union of India through the Department of Industrial Pollution
Control Air Quality Management (DH-AQM) at the Central
Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change, New Delhi
.... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate
Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate
Ms. Mrinalini Adela Tete, Advocate
Ms. Preeti Hembrom, Advocate
Ms. Singi Sharon Demta, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Prakash, C.G.C.
For the Resp.-UoI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
Ms. Niki Sinha, C.G.C.
For the Resp.-JNAC : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocate
---
Reserved on 19.08.2025 Pronounced on 26.08.2025
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and
setting aside Letter No. 3542 dated 19.10.2023 issued by the
respondent no. 3 – the Special Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area
Committee (JNAC), Jamshedpur whereby the petitioner has been
intimated that in the light of directives received from Central Pollution
Control Board (CPCB), New Delhi, the work of “Selection of Master
System Integrator for Supply, Installation and Commissioning of
1
2025:JHHC:25257-DB
Command and Control Centre with Portable ‘Continuous Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring Station’ (CAAQMS) Devices and Digital LED Display
Board for Jamshedpur with hand holding and support for 36 months
from the date of Go-Live” (hereinafter referred as “the said work”)
towards e-tender number-JNAC/E-Pro-25/2021-22 issued under 15th
Finance Commission has been postponed by the office of Jamshedpur
Notified Area Committee.
2. Further prayer has been made for quashing the Letter No. EQ-
11099-8-2021-AQM-HO-CPCB-HO dated 22.11.2022, addressed to the
Member Secretary, SPCB/PCCs/ULBs and the Municipal
Commissioners, Non-attainment Cities to the extent it states- “if work
order is issued for procurement of ‘CAAQMS’ but fund is not released,
then work order is to be cancelled.”
3. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondent-
JNAC to make payment of Rs.1,34,00,000/- (Rs.One Crore Thirty-Four
Lakhs Only) to the petitioner which is the expense incurred by it
towards the order placed with the manufacturer as due to delayed
communication of changes in requirements and suspension of the
work made to it by the respondent no. 3 vide Letter No. 3542 dated
19.10.2023, it suffered a huge loss.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that JNAC floated
an advertisement vide e-tender bearing no. JNAC/E-Pro-25/2021-22
dated 28.12.2021 for the said work. The petitioner applied and was
declared L1 bidder being a lead member along with one M/S
Ranisons (Consortium Member), Doranda, Ranchi vide ‘letter of
acceptance’ bearing Letter No. 622 dated 22.02.2022.
5. Subsequently, an agreement for the said work was executed
2
2025:JHHC:25257-DB
between the petitioner and the JNAC on 25.03.2022 and as per its
terms and conditions, a performance bank guarantee of
Rs. 23,01,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs One Thousand Only)
dated 12.04.2022 duly executed by the Central Bank of India, Upper
Bazar Branch, Ranchi in favour of the respondent no. 3, was
submitted by the petitioner which was valid upto
06.10.2025. Thereafter, a work order was issued in favour of
the petitioner vide letter no. 1023 dated 28.03.2022 wherein it was
instructed to commence the work from 25.04.2022 and to complete
the office setup within a stipulated time frame of 180 days.
6. It is further submitted that on the basis of the said work order,
the petitioner made considerable payment to ‘Vasthi Instruments Pvt.
Ltd.’ (Manufacturer-Vendor) and in the meantime, it also submitted a
copy of ‘System Requirement Specification’ (SRS) to the respondent
no. 3 vide Ref. No. NSPL/JNAC/1003/21-22 dated 03.06.2022
followed by continuous reminders seeking approval of the same so as
to enable it to commence the delivery of the products from the OEM’s
to the project locations as well as to start the activities attached with
the project so that the allotted work could be finished within the
estimated time frame as mentioned in the Request for Proposal
(RFP).
7. It is also argued that the petitioner made several reminders to
the respondent no. 3 so that timely approval of SRS could be
obtained in order to finish the allotted work within the estimated time
frame mentioned in the ‘Request for Proposal’ (RFP), as the products
were ready to be supplied by the vendor company, however all went
in vein.
3
2025:JHHC:25257-DB
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the
vendor company had already started putting pressure upon the
petitioner for taking legal action against it owing to the fact that it
had already honoured the work order in furtherance of the
requirements of RFP.
9. It is also contended that vide impugned Letter No. 3542 dated
19.10.2023, the respondent no. 3 intimated the petitioner that as per
the instructions received from Central Pollution Control Board, the
implementation of the said work was kept in abeyance. It was also
informed that vide Letter No. EQ-11099-8-2021-AQM-HO-CPCB-HO
dated 22.11.2022, several directions had been issued to the Member
Secretary, SPCBs/PCCs/ULBs and the Municipal Commissioners, Non-
attainment Cities including the one – “if work order was issued for
procurement of CAAQMS, but fund was not released then work order
was to be cancelled.”
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on bare
perusal of letter dated 16.08.2022 issued by the Member Secretary,
Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board to the respondent no. 3,
based on which the impugned letter dated 19.10.2023 has been
issued to the petitioner, it would be crystal clear that there was
direction to the respondent no. 3 to implement technical specification
for analyser based CAAQMS instead of sensor based CAAQMS, which
had been sent by the Central Pollution Control Board vide e-mail on
06.12.2021, however the respondent no. 3 did not bother to intimate
the same to the petitioner.
11. It is also submitted that if the authorities of JNAC had timely
gone through the directives of Jharkhand State Pollution Control
4
2025:JHHC:25257-DB
Board regarding reference of technical specification for analyser
based CAAQMS, they would have been in the position to properly
guide or communicate the petitioner the details pertaining to the
System Requirement Specification, which, in turn, would have
prevented it from placing orders for procurement of raw materials
and would have also saved a huge amount incurred in the same i.e.,
Rs.1,34,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty-Four Lakhs Only).
12. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-JNAC
submits that the issue raised by the petitioner is purely a contractual
dispute which need not be interfered by this Court under its writ
jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the implementation of the said
work has been kept in abeyance following the direction of the Central
Pollution Control Board.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
14. The petitioner is aggrieved with the decision of the respondent
no. 3 whereby the execution of the said work has been kept in
abeyance as per the direction of the Central Pollution Control Board.
15. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that due to issuance of the impugned Letter No. 3542
dated 19.10.2023, the petitioner has suffered huge pecuniary loss as
it had already placed the order to the manufacturer-company
pursuant to the work order issued to it.
16. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour
Vs. Chief Executive Officer and Others reported in
5
2025:JHHC:25257-DB
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682.
17. We have gone through the said judgment wherein Their
Lordships while referring various earlier judgments rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope of judicial review by the
constitutional Courts in contractual matters, have held that there has
been a considerable shift in the scope of judicial review of the
constitutional court when it comes to contractual disputes where one
of the parties is the State or its instrumentalities. It has further been
held that the State would be under an obligation to comply with the
basic principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and not to act in an arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable manner.
Judicial review is permissible to prevent arbitrariness of public
authorities and to ensure that they do not exceed or abuse their
powers in contractual transactions. Moreover, it also requires
overseeing the administrative power of the public authorities to
award or cancel contract or any of its stipulations.
18. It has also been held that the question as to whether an
impugned action is arbitrary or not, is ultimately to be answered on
the facts and in the circumstances of a given case. An obvious test to
apply is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging
from the impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of
reasonableness. Where a mode is prescribed for doing an act and
there is no impediment in following that procedure, the performance
of the act otherwise and in a manner which does not disclose any
discernible principle which is reasonable, may itself attract the vice of
arbitrariness. Every State action must be informed by reason and it
follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary.
6
2025:JHHC:25257-DB
19. Looking to the facts and circumstance of the said case, it was
observed by the Apex Court that the dispute was not pure contractual
in nature as the same involved a public law element. Although there
was no discharge of a public function by the respondent towards the
appellant, yet there was a right to public law action vested in him
against the respondent in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India as the exercise of executive power by it in the contractual
domain i.e., the cancelling of the tender carried a corresponding
public duty to act in a reasonable and rationale manner.
20. In the said case, it was further observed that the tender was
cancelled at the behest of the concerned Minister. The respondent’s
stance of a mere possibility of fetching higher license fees was no
ground to cancel the tender for the purpose of rectifying it especially
when the respondent completely failed to demonstrate as to how
there was a technical fault in the tender or how potential interested
bidders did not participate due to it or how fetching higher license
fees was more than a mere possibility.
21. On the given facts, Their Lordships were of the considered
opinion that the said case was a classic one of an arbitrary exercise of
power by the respondent to cancel the tender which was issued to
the appellant on the basis of extraneous considerations and at the
behest of none other but the concerned Minister In-Charge.
22. Coming back to the present case, the impugned letter no.
3542 dated 19.10.2023 has been issued by the respondent no. 3 to
the petitioner referring the letter as contained in Reference No.
NCAP/MPC/Jamshedpur/Part-1/B-1631 dated 16.08.2022 issued by
the Member Secretary, JSPCB to the respondent no. 3 as well as the
7
2025:JHHC:25257-DB
letter no. EQ-11099-8-2021-AQM-HO-CPCB-HO dated 22.11.2022
issued by the DH-AQM, CPCB to the Member Secretary
SPCBs/PCCs/ULBs and the Municipal Commissioners, Non-attainment
Cities.
23. We have perused the letter dated 16.08.2022 whereby the
Member Secretary, JSPCB informed the respondent no. 3 that as per
CPCB letter no. 14760 dated 25.03.2022, air quality data generation
using any technology including low-cost sensor other than that
specified in ‘National Ambient Air Quality Standards’ was not being
used for regulatory purpose as its accuracy, linearity and long-term
performance was not yet fully established. It was further informed
that neither CPCB was using sensor-based data for air quality
management nor it had advised any State Pollution Control Board or
industry to install or use such sensor. Further, the respondent no. 3
was requested to refer technical specification for analyzer based
CAAQMS which had been sent by the Central Pollution Control Board
vide e-mail on 06.12.2021 and to ensure its implementation.
24. We have also perused the letter dated 22.11.2022 issued by
the DH-AQM, CPCB, MoEF&CC, Government of India, New Delhi
whereby the decisions taken in its 11th Meeting of the
Implementation Committee under National Clean Air Programme
(NCAP) held on 20.10.2022 was informed to the Member Secretary
SPCBs/PCCs/ULBs and the Municipal Commissioners, Non-attainment
Cities for its compliance. In the said meeting, the following decisions
were taken by the Committee: –
1. No fresh work order to be issued for procurement of
CAAQMS under central govt. fund.
8
2025:JHHC:25257-DB
2. If procurement of CAAQMS is at any stage for which
fund has not been transferred then SPCB/ULB to ensure
that no further fund is transferred.
3. If work order is issued for procurement of CAAQMS but
fund not released the work order is to be cancelled.
4. If fund transferred for procurement of CAAQMS then
the matter to be referred to MoEF&CC/CPCB with
documentary evidence for taking a view.
25. It is thus explicitly clear from the letter dated 16.08.2022 that
the CPCB had taken the decision not to use sensor based CAAQMS,
rather it had recommended for analyzer based CAAQMS to maintain
accuracy, linearity and long-term performance. Subsequently, vide
letter dated 22.11.2022, the work order for procurement of CAAQMS
was directed to be cancelled. Accordingly, the respondent no. 3
issued the impugned letter dated 19.10.2023 in compliance of the
said direction issued by CPCB.
26. We are of the view that there is a rationale behind issuance of
the impugned letter and thus, the action of the respondent no. 3
cannot be said to be arbitrary so as to make any interference with the
same under the writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the dispute between the
petitioner and the JNAC is purely contractual in nature and no public
law element is involved in the same.
27. That apart, no final decision has yet been taken by the
respondent no. 3 with respect to cancellation of the said work, rather
vide impugned letter dated 19.10.2023, only the execution of the said
work has been kept in abeyance. Hence, otherwise also no
interference is warranted by this Court at this stage. In view of the
aforesaid factual position of the present case, we are of the
considered view that the judgment rendered the Hon’ble Supreme
9
2025:JHHC:25257-DB
Court in the case of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour (supra.) is
not applicable in the factual context of the present case.
28. It is a trite law that in case of breach of contract, the
aggrieved party may sue for damages and such suit is cognizable by
the civil court. The High Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction is
not supposed to entertain a petition for recovering damages. Thus,
the claim for damages made by the petitioner cannot be entertained
by this Court as the same is within the realm of the competent civil
court which can quantify the damage by taking into consideration the
evidences as may be led by both the parties.
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is
dismissed.
30. The pending application(s), if any, also stands closed.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
A.F.R.
Ritesh/
10
[ad_2]
Source link