ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The Petitioner herein has filed this petition aggrieved by the action of the Respondents whereby the Respondents, in the matter of a construction work carried out by the Petitioner under the works contract, proceeded to terminate the agreement and thereafter, proceeded to issue a new notice inviting tender for the remaining construction works. In 2015, a notice inviting tender was published by the Respondents for construction of a building of a Polytechnic College at Janakpur. The Petitioner emerged as the successful bidder and he was awarded the contract towards which agreement was executed and the work order was also issued in favour of the Petitioner on 22.06.2015. Later on, on account of certain disputes having arisen, a letter was issued to the petitioner on 17.05.2016 to stop the work. The Petitioner laid blame on the authorities saying that because of their non-cooperation, he could not complete the work in time and submitted an application for grant of extension of time. The request of the Petitioner did not find favour and the Respondent authorities proceeded to issue an order of termination on 30.10.2017. This was followed by a show cause notice issued to the Petitioner on 02.02.2018 to which reply was also submitted. Finally, the Respondents proceeded to issue a fresh NIT for getting the work completed by a new contractor. At this stage, the Petitioner challenged the action of the Respondents by filing this writ petition mainly on the ground that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he had been executing his work according to the terms of the contract and if the work could not be completed on time, he could not be blamed but the authorities.

(3.) On 27.03.2019, this Court issued notices to the Respondents and also passed an interim order to the effect that further steps to complete the tender process of the impugned re-tender shall be held back. The Respondents, thereafter, filed their return in which they have taken a stand that the non-completion of the work within time was attributable only to the defaults committed by the Petitioner and he has been laying blame on the authorities without any basis.