NARESHKUMAR GUPTA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition impugns the order dated 6th July, 2011 of the respondents determining the contract with the petitioner and forfeiting the earnest money deposit, security deposit and Performance Guarantee and further intimating the petitioner that the balance remaining work shall be done at the cost and risk of the petitioner. Mandamus is also sought directing the respondents to refund the earnest money/security deposit and the Performance Guarantee furnished by the petitioner and to not take steps for getting the balance work done at the risk and cost of the petitioner.

(2.) THE respondents had pursuant to acceptance of the bid of the petitioner placed an order on the petitioner for construction of brick roads and sewage water drains in W-Block of Janaki Vihar, Prem Nagar-II in Karari Assembly Constituency in Kanjhawala Block. It is the case of the petitioner, that though the stipulated date for completion of the said works was 12th October, 2010 but on account of hindrances at site, the time for completion was suo moto extended up to 31st January, 2011; that though the tender amount of the said work was '15,85,371/- but as on 17th January, 2011 the petitioner had already completed the work of more than Rs.18 lacs and was as such was not in a position to work any further without revision of the work and approval of the same by the Competent Authority; that however the respondents instead of so having the work revised from the Competent Authority are, contending that the work had not been completed by the petitioner and the work in two more gallies remained to be done as per the agreement and that the petitioner under the agreement is liable to execute the work deviated up to 50% if any. THE petitioner contends that the deviation however is in excess of 50% and without being paid the market rate for the deviations beyond 50%, he cannot be expected to continue/complete the work.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has neither failed to complete the work nor abandoned the work and thus the action of the respondents of determining the contract and forfeiting the earnest money, security deposit and performance guarantee and of threatening to have the work executed on the risk of the petitioner is unwarranted.