Mumbai: describing MmrdaThe actions as arbitrary and unfair, Bombay HC on Tuesday reserved a notice of January 3 by which the services of the Indian subsidiary of the French engineering firm Systra ended as a consultant for three metropolitan lines in the Mumbai region. Even in a contract with a private part, judges said, the State and their agencies are “under the obligation to act fairly.”
“We found that MMRDA’s action in the interruption of the terms of the contract, which extended until December 31, 2026, without assigning any reason, is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable,” said the president of the Supreme Court. Alok Aradhe and justice Doctor Arif. They addressed MMRDA “to make a new decision regarding the interruption or otherwise the contract granted to the petitioner again after listening to it, through an order to speak (with reasons).”
The petition was presented by Systra MVA Consulting (India) PVT LTD, which challenged the validity of the January 3 notice to suspend its services for the metropolitan lines 5 (Thane-Bhiwandi-Kalyan), 7a ((((((((((Andheri (E) -In international anopuerto) and 9 (Dahisar-Mira-Bhayandar).
Main defender Venkatesh Dhond He argued that the notice was issued outside the terms of the agreement and does not establish the reasons for the interruption of Systra MVA services.
Main defender Biree SarafFor MMRDA, he said that the request is “wrong” and proceeds in a wrong way that the interruption notice is out of the contract. He said that a clause in the general conditions of the contract allows him to terminate the contract without assigning any reason.
In February 2020, the MMRDA invited offers for the appointment of a general consultant for design, acquisition assistance, construction and supervision of Mumbai Metro Lines 5 (Thane-Bhiwandi-Kalyan), 7a (andheri (e) -csia ), and 9 (Dahisar-Mira-Bhayandar). The Systra-Smcipl consortium, of which Systra MVA is part and has a 70%participation, presented its RS 90.7 million rupees.
The MMRDA accepted the offer. On May 31, 2021, he issued an acceptance letter (LOA) to the petitioner and appointed it as a general consultant for system work “for a part of the” the three metropolitan lines. From then on, on December 28, 2021, the parties concluded an agreement. The initial contract was for 42 months since May 31, 2021, the date of the LOA, until November 30, 2024. About the consultant ‘S applicationOn October 4, 2024, the MMRDA extended the contract until December 2026. The January 3 notice informed him that his services were suspended “with effect from the 46th of the notice issuance.”
The judges referred to the notice of January 3, adding: “… it is evident that the MMRDA has not assigned any reason for the interruption of the services of the petitioner.” In addition, the clause “cannot be read to mean that the MMRDA has a license to act unfair, arbitrary or unreasonable in the contractual field without assigning reasons.”
According to Dhond Who cited decisions of the Supreme Court, said: “The State or its instrumentality even while acting in the contractual field has the obligation to act fairly or cannot act arbitrarily or unreasonable.” Saraf had argued that the petitioner cannot try to avoid his contractual commitments by seeking to invoke principles of the public law of reasonability and equity in an issue within the domain of private law contracts. “In the present case, the nature of the controversy involves an element of public law and, therefore, this court in the exercise of the power of judicial review can examine whether the action of instrumentality or the State agency is fair, fair and equitable, “the judges said.
They also said in view of their conclusion, that the action of the termination of the MMRDA contract was arbitrary and unfair, “we do not need to examine the nature of the contract.” For the same reason, they also refused to accept Saraf’s statement to relegate the petitioner to arbitration.
Mumbai: Describing MMRDA’s actions as arbitrary and unfair, Bombay HC on Tuesday reserved a notice of January 3 by which he finished the services of the Indian subsidiary of the French engineering firm Systra as a consultant for three metropolitan lines in the region of Mumbai. Even in a contract with a private part, judges said, the State and their agencies are “under the obligation to act fairly.”
“We found that MMRDA’s action in the interruption of the terms of the contract, which extended until December 31, 2026, without assigning any reason, is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable,” said the president of the Supreme Court Alok Aradhe and the Justice Arif doctor. . They addressed MMRDA “to make a new decision regarding the interruption or otherwise the contract granted to the petitioner again after listening to it, through an order to speak (with reasons).”
The petition was presented by Systra MVA Consulting (India) PVT LTD, which challenged the validity of the January 3 notice to suspend its services for the metropolitan lines 5 (Thane-Bhiwandi-Kalyan), 7a (andheri (e) -Intern International International ), and 9 (Dahisar-Mira-Bhayandar).
The main lawyer Venkatesh Dhond argued that the notice was issued outside the terms of the agreement and does not establish the reasons for the interruption of Systra MVA services.
The main defender Birendra Saraf, for the MMRDA, said that the petition is “badly conceived” and erroneous that the interruption warning is out of the contract. He said that a clause in the general conditions of the contract allows him to terminate the contract without assigning any reason.
In February 2020, the MMRDA invited offers for the appointment of a general consultant for design, acquisition assistance, construction and supervision of Mumbai Metro Lines 5 (Thane-Bhiwandi-Kalyan), 7a (andheri (e) -csia ), and 9 (Dahisar-Mira-Bhayandar). The Systra-Smcipl consortium, of which Systra MVA is part and has a 70%participation, presented its RS 90.7 million rupees.
The MMRDA accepted the offer. On May 31, 2021, he issued an acceptance letter (LOA) to the petitioner and appointed it as a general consultant for system work “for a part of the” the three metropolitan lines. From then on, on December 28, 2021, the parties concluded an agreement. The initial contract was for 42 months from May 31, 2021, the date of the LOA, until November 30, 2024. At the request of the consultant, on October 4, 2024, the MMRDA extended the contract until December 2026 .
The judges referred to the notice of January 3, adding: “… it is evident that the MMRDA has not assigned any reason for the interruption of the services of the petitioner.” In addition, the clause “cannot be read to mean that the MMRDA has a license to act unfair, arbitrary or unreasonable in the contractual field without assigning reasons.”
According to Dhond, who cited decisions of the Supreme Court, they said: “The State or its instrumentality even while acting in the contractual field has the obligation to act fairly or cannot act arbitrarily or unjustified.” Saraf had argued that the petitioner cannot try to avoid his contractual commitments by seeking to invoke principles of the public law of reasonability and equity in an issue within the domain of private law contracts. “In the present case, the nature of the controversy involves an element of public law and, therefore, this court in the exercise of the power of judicial review can examine whether the action of instrumentality or the State agency is fair, fair and equitable, “the judges” said.
They also said in view of their conclusion, that the action of the termination of the MMRDA contract was arbitrary and unfair, “we do not need to examine the nature of the contract.” For the same reason, they also refused to accept Saraf’s statement to relegate the petitioner to arbitration.