G.A. DESAI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Vittal Sattigeri, learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) Facts giving raise to filing of these writ petitions are that the petitioners are Class-I contractors. The 4th respondent called tenders for providing CC lining in W.P. No. 38438/2016 in Km No. 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 25 of Bilagi Branch Canal (Package-X), in W.P. No. 38439/2016 CC lining in OL-1, 1A, SOL-2, OL-4, 5, 6 and 8 of Giragon Dy. and in WP. No. 36182/2016 CC lining to (a) KM No. 1 of Gani Branch Canal and Easening of deep cut portion in KM 1 and 2 of Gani Branch Canal (b) KM No. 4 of Gani Dy. No. 1 (c) KM No. 1, 6, 7 and 8 of Gani Dy. No. 2 (d) KM No. 3, 4, 5 of Girgaon Dy. (Package No. 28). The tender applications of the petitioners were accepted. The total cost of the tender work awarded to the petitioners in W.P. No. 38438/2016 was Rs. 2,78,83,912/-, in W.P. No. 38439/2016 Rs. 1,86,27,518/- and in W.P. No. 36182/2016 Rs. 341.01 lakhs, which were to be completed within a period of 120 days excluding monsoon and irrigation period. Accordingly, the agreement was executed between the parties on 14.12.2006, 12.08.2010 and 17.10.2007 respectively.

(3.) The petitioners started the work in WP. No. 38438/2016 on 01.03.2007, in WP. No. 38439/2016 on 12.08.2010 and in WP. No. 36182/2016 on 01.03.2008 and the scheduled date of completion of work was extended upto 15.07.2012 in WP. No. 38438/2016 and 30.07.2008 in WP. No. 36182/2016 with penalty and the period was not extended in the case of petitioner in W.P. No. 38439/2016. The petitioners during the extended time completed the contract work for Rs. 1,93,77,241.08/- in WP. No. 38438/2016, Rs. 1,12,13,1424.50/- in W.P. No. 38439/2016 and Rs. 1,28,93,340.09/- in W.P. No. 36182/2016. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a representation to 4th respondent to extend further more time to complete the tender work by pleading their difficulties. However, by an impugned order dated 28.04.2016, 31.03.2016 and 25.04.2016, the work awarded to the petitioners were rescinded and a decision was taken to call for fresh tender at the cost and risk of the petitioners.