DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. POLO SINGH AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by an order and judgment dated 21.3.2001 of the learned Single Judge dismissing appellant's objections and making the award dated 4.3.1998 rule of the Court, (be appellant preferred instant appeal seeking reversal thereof.

(2.) First, a resume- of facts The respondent/claimant was awarded construction work of 356 SFS houses, Category II at Madipur. Pocket 111 and 132 SFS houses. Category II, at Madipur, Pocket III, Grade II, by the appellant-Authority. The stipulated date for commencement of work was 17th of March, 1989. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 1,23,06,150/- and the tendered amount was Rs.1,48,28,910/- . The work was to be completed within 15 months, on or before 16th of June, 1990. The respondent/claimant, however, failed to commence the work. The contract was eventually rescinded by the. appellant-Authority on 21st of August, 1989. The reason for non-commencement of work, as staled by the respondent/claimant, is that the site was not handed over to it on 7th of March. 1989 when the work was awarded as the piling work, being executed by another contractor, was incomplete apart from being defective, thereby incapacitating the respondent/claimant from proceeding with construction thereon. In spite of such defects being brought to the notice of the appellant by way of sketches and photographs, the same were not got rectified. The respondent/claimant claimed to have been keen to start the work and for that purpose constructed a godown at the site for storage of cement, besides undertaking the boring of a tube well, drawing water sample therefrom and sending the same to Shriram Institute for Industrial Research for analysis. It also paid a sum of Rs. 1,810/- to DESU on 11th of April, 1989 to secure an electric connection, and collected building materials, including cement, bricks, iron bars, etc. However, due to non- availability of site and defective piling work, it could not proceed with the work. The respondent claimant, in the circumstances, termed the termination of the contract by the appellant as illegal since the delay in the commencement of work, according to it, was attributable to the appellant only.

(3.) The plea of the appellant, on the ether hand, was that the respondent/claimant had no intention from the very beginning to execute the work as is manifest from the fact that the site for 1.1.5 blocks was handed over to the respondent/claimant on the stipulated date for commencement of the work w.e.f.173.1989, which was followed by handing over of 2.5 blocks on the 11th of April. 1989 and the remaining 2.5 blocks on the 25th of April, 1989, It is, accordingly, claimed that substantial portion of the site was made available to the respondent/claimant to proceed with the work- According to the appellant, the piling foundation work did not- suffer from any major defect and only minor rectifications were required to be carried out, for which only 16 bags of cement were consumed, the details of which are as under:- 4th of July, 1989 -10 bags 5th of July, 1989 - 3 bags 6th of July, 1989 3 bags