Managing Director, Dhaka WASA Vs. Superior Builders and Engineers Ltd., 51 DLR (AD) (1999) 56

Case No: Civil Petition For Leave to appeal No. 740 of 1998

Judge: Mustafa Kamal ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Aminul Huq,Mr. Fazlul Karim,,

Citation: 51 DLR (AD) (1999) 56

Case Year: 1999

Appellant: Managing Director, Dhaka WASA

Respondent: Superior Builders and Engineers Ltd.

Subject: Writ Jurisdiction, Legitimate Expectation , Law of Contract,

Delivery Date: 1999-1-5

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
ATM Afzal CJ
Mustafa Kamal J
Latifur Rahman J
Md. Abdur Rouf J
 
Managing Director, Dhaka WASA
………………… Petitioner
Vs
Superior Builders and Engineers Ltd.
……………… Respondents
 
Judgment
January 5, 1999
 
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
A writ petition cannot be founded merely on contract, but when a contract is concluded the contractor has a legitimate expectation that he will be dealt with fairly……..(6) 
 
Lawyers Involved:
Aminul Haque, Advocate, instructed by Md. Nawab Ali Advocate-on-Record—For the Petitioner.
Md. Fazlul Karim, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Aftab Hossain Advocate-on-Record — For the Respondent No. 1.
Not represented—Respondent Nos. 2-9.
 
Civil Petition For Leave to appeal No. 740 of 1998.
(From the Judgment and order dated 15-6-98 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.562 of 1998).
 
JUDGMENT
 
Mustafa Kamal J.
 
This petition for leave to appeal by respondent-petitioner No.1 is from the judgment and order dated 15-6-98 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 562 of 1998 making the Rule Nisi absolute and directing the respondents to the writ petition to pay a cost of Taka 10,000.00 to petitioner-respondent 1.
 
2. Respondent No.1 entered into a contract with the petitioner for supply of water tank and 150 KVA generator for Dhaka WASA. The acceptance of the respondent bid was communicated by Memo. dated 24-11-97. The respondent deposited Taka 6,78,000.00 as security money upon furnishing Bank guarantee. The respondent also executed the contract. But all on a sudden respondent No.9 by Memo. dated 4-12-97 cancelled the contract which the respondent challenged in the instant writ petition.
 
3. The petitioner’s contention in their affidavit-in-opposition was that the offer of the respondent was found not to be tallying with the specification of the work as tendered by the petitioner, at the time of re-examination.
 
4. As already noticed the High Court Division made the Rule Nisi absolute.
 
5. Aminul Haque, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that the writ petition arises out of a contract and in case of its failure or breach the respondent’s remedy did not lie in a writ petition which the High Court Division erred in law in entertaining.
 
6. Basically, the principle is that, a writ petition cannot be founded merely on contract, but when a contract is concluded, the contractor has a legitimate expectation that he will be dealt with fairly. The petitioner could have asked the respondent to supply the water tanks and generator according to specification and could have given him an opportunity to complete the work according to specification, taking the anomaly during re examination to be correct; but to cancel the contract unilaterally without regard to subsequent developments is a high feat of arbitrariness which rightly attracts the writ jurisdiction.
 
7. Aminul Haque next submits that the High Court Division acted in excess of jurisdiction in awarding a high cost of Taka 10,000.00 to the respondent.
 
8. In view of the highhandedness and arbitrariness of the impugned action we do not think that the High Court Division acted in excess of jurisdiction. The cost has been rightly given.
 
The petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.