k 1/5 17 wp 4317.25 db as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4317 OF 2025 M/s. Sonu Sevices Solapur a Proprietorship represented through its sole Proprietor namely Ashfak Agasapure ....Petitioner Versus The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Valmiky Narvekar I/b Mr. Mohammad S. Mulla, for Petitioner. Mr. Nirav Shah I/b M/s. Little & Co. for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5. Mr. Somnath Thengal for Respondent No.4. __________ CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 25 JUNE 2025. Order: (Per : Sandeep V. Marne, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, the Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. 2. The Petitioner has filed the present Petition challenging the order dated 18 March 2025 passed by Respondent No.2 cancelling all the work orders issued to it in respect of Barshi Division, Pandharpur Division and Solapur Rural Division with effect from 19 May 2025. k Page No. 1 of 5 k 2/5 17 wp 4317.25 db as.doc 3. Brief facts leading to filing of Petition are that the Petitioner is engaged into the business of labour contracting and possesses a valid license issued by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL). Respondent No.1 issued tender for supply of skilled manpower (Technician) on outsource basis in Barshi Division of Solapur Circle. Petitioner participated in the bidding process and turned out to be a successful bidder. Work order dated 29 November 2024 was issued to the Petitioner allotting it the work of providing skilled manpower of Operator on outsourcing basis at Barshi Division. The contract period was for 12 months from the date of letter of allotment or till the work order amount was exhausted or till finalisation of new tender, whichever was earliest. Petitioner commenced the work in pursuance of the work order. On 3 January 2025 one of the employees of the Petitioner filed FIR alleging non-payment of salary. Another FIR was lodged by one more employee on 26 January 2025. The Petitioner was arrested in one of the FIRs and later released on bail. A Committee was appointed to enquire into registration of offences against the Petitioner. A show-cause notice was issued on 28 February 2025 alleging that the image of MSEDCL was maligned on account of registration of FIRs against the Petitioner and calling him upon to explain as to why the work order issued to him be not cancelled. Petitioner responded to the show-cause notice. By impugned order dated 18 March 2025, MSEDCL has proceeded to cancel all work orders issued to the Petitioner in respect of Barshi Division, Pandharpur Division and Solapur Rural Division with k Page No. 2 of 5 k 3/5 17 wp 4317.25 db as.doc effect from 19 May 2025. Aggrieved by order dated 18 March 2025, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition. 4. We have heard Mr. Narvekar, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner, Mr. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and Mr. Thengal, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4. We have perused records of the case filed alongwith the pleadings. 5. Petitioner was awarded the work of providing skilled manpower on outsourcing basis for Barshi Division. Under clause 1(J) of General Terms and Conditions of the Contract, the work order issued to the Petitioner was cancellable upon any breach of contract on the part of the contractor. Under clause C(i), it was the responsibility of the Petitioner to pay wages to its employees. The contract was thus awarded with a specific stipulation that the Petitioner shall pay the wages of its employees. Therefore, non- payment of wages to its employees would constitute breach of contract condition. In the present case, it has been found that the Petitioner did not pay wages to Shri Balu Bhandwalkar during November 2023 to April 2024. Similarly, he did not pay wages to Shri Manoj Shinde during January, March and April 2024. FIRs have been lodged against the Petitioner in respect of his conduct of non- payment of wages to the employees and in respect of one of the FIRs, he was also arrested. In our view therefore, the Competent Authority has rightly cancelled the work order issued to the Petitioner in respect of Barshi Division, where it was found that the k Page No. 3 of 5 k 4/5 17 wp 4317.25 db as.doc Petitioner had failed to pay wages to its employees without any valid reason. We are therefore not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 18 March 2025 so far as it cancels the work order for Barshi Division. 6. However perusal of the impugned order dated 18 March 2025 would indicate that the MSEDCL has proceeded to cancel all the work orders issued to the Petitioner. Though the violation of contract conditions is noticed only in respect of contract awarded for Barshi Division, Petitioner's contract is also cancelled in respect of Pandharpur Division and Solapur Rural Division. Admittedly neither the show-cause notice nor the impugned order dated 18 March 2025 alleged that there is any violation of contract condition on the part of the Petitioner in Pandharpur Division or Solapur Rural Division. These are independent contracts without any linkage to one another. Therefore, the breach committed in resepct of one contract cannot result in termination of other independent contracts. In our view therefore, impugned order dated 18 March 2025, to the extent it seeks to cancel work order in respect of Pandharpur Division and Solapur Rural Division is clearly unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 7. The Petition succeeds partly, and we proceed to pass the following order: i) Impugned order dated 18 March 2025 is sustained only to the extent of cancellation of work order of the Petitioner in respect of Barshi Division. k Page No. 4 of 5 k 5/5 17 wp 4317.25 db as.doc ii) The order dated 18 March 2025, to the extent it seeks to cancel work order of the Petitioner for Pandharpur Division and Solapur Rural Division, is set aside. 8. The Petition is partly allowed in above terms. Rule is made partly absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) k Page No. 5 of 5 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2025.06.26 14:55:07 +0530