Withdrawal of casually pleaded writ petition with liberty to refile is conditional upon payment of costs.

The petitioner, a construction firm, filed a writ petition seeking to quash termination orders dated 30.12.2025 and 11.02.2026 issued by the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 7) regarding a contract agreement.

The petitioner also challenged a fresh Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued by Respondent No. 3.

The petitioner argued that the termination was not an independent decision of the competent authority but was made at the dictates of the Chief Engineer.

Additionally, the petitioner contended that Clause 3 of the Agreement provided for penalties or extensions for slow progress, making the termination arbitrary.

The State counsel raised a preliminary objection that these specific legal grounds were not pleaded in the writ petition.

Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition to file a fresh one with proper pleadings.

1. Whether the termination order was passed by the competent authority independently or under the impermissible dictates of a superior authority.

2. Whether the grounds for termination, specifically "unsatisfactory progress," were consistent with the mechanisms provided under Clause 3 of the governing Agreement.

3. Whether a petitioner may withdraw a deficient writ petition to file a fresh one, and if costs should be imposed for wasting judicial time due to "casual" pleadings.

The Court focused on the administrative law principle that a statutory authority must exercise its vested power independently and in accordance with the law, rather than acting on the dictates or recommendations of a superior.

It also addressed the contractual principle that termination must be strictly compliant with the specific stipulations of the agreement, such as Clause 3, which may prioritize penalties or extensions over termination for delays.

Lastly, the Court exercised its discretionary power to impose costs for "casual" litigation that results in the wastage of the Court’s time.

The petitioner’s counsel raised substantive legal arguments during the hearing regarding the lack of independent judgment by the Executive Engineer and the misapplication of Clause 3 of the Agreement.

However, the Court noted the State's objection that these critical grounds were entirely absent from the written pleadings of the petition.

The Court found that the petitioner had filed the petition in a "casual manner," leading to an oral request for withdrawal to rectify the pleadings.

While the Court was inclined to grant the liberty to file a fresh petition to ensure the merits of the case could be heard, it determined that the petitioner’s failure to include essential pleadings initially constituted a waste of judicial resources.

It granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition incorporating all relevant grounds and appropriate pleadings, subject to the payment of costs of ₹25,000.

The Court directed that the cost be deposited with the Registry for transmission to the Government Special School for Visual and Hearing Impaired, Tifra, Bilaspur.

The Court further ordered the return of certified copies of documents to the petitioner upon retention of photocopies.