N. ARJUNAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review is sought for in respect of judgment dated 01.11.2018 passed by this Court whereby interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed holding that the contract work was terminated way back on 30.03.2012; whereas the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition only in the year 2018 i.e. by virtue of after 6 years. The Bench however made it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition would not come in the way of the Petitioner in pursuing the remedy in accordance with law, as per the terms of the agreement, before the appropriate forum.

(2.) The grievance of the review Petitioner is that the issue projected by the writ Petitioner was not with regard to any challenge in respect of the termination of contract, but was only to get back the amount tendered by him by way of EMD and the payment to be released in respect of the works already executed. It is pointed out that the Petitioner had come up successful in the tender notified by the Respondents, pursuant to which the work of construction of the road was awarded to him. After issuance of the work order on 15.12.2008, the Petitioner was proceeding with further steps and some work was completed as well, but then, the Forest Department intervened and revoked the 'permission' granted earlier, for construction of the road; by virtue of which the Petitioner was required to stop the work as per the proceedings dated 30.12.2009. The work already done by the Petitioner was acknowledged by the Respondent on 24.12.2010 and a meeting was convened on 26.11.2010. Finally, since it was the revealed that it was not possible to proceed with the work by virtue of the interference made by the Forest authorities, termination order was issued to the Petitioner on 30.03.2012. However, the payment to be made in respect of the works completed by the Petitioner was not released and so also the EMD. On finding that the various representation / request made by the Petitioner did not turn to be fruitful, the writ petition was filed with the following with the prayers:

(3.) When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 18.07.2019, referring to the nature of challenge involved, the following order was passed: