NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. BEL-ACC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A contract dated 01.02.2001 had been entered into between the National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner) and M/s BEL- ACC (JV) (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent?) wherein the project of strengthening and four laning of the existing two lane sections between 307.500 Km to 321.00 Km of Etawah Bypass on NH-2 in Uttar Pradesh had been awarded to the respondent. The work was to be completed by 03.10.2003 i.e. within a period of two and half years. Delays were noted by the NHAI pursuant to which notice dated 15.11.2001 had been issued to the respondent followed by other correspondences evidencing that the work progress was slow on account of various reasons which were attributable to the respondent. Variations in the work contract were discussed in meetings held between the parties on various occasions i.e. in the first meeting on 19.11.2001 followed by exchange of correspondence in the year 2002 which led to the revised date of completion which was accordingly fixed for March, 2004. The date of completion was further enlarged in view of the re-revised work programme dated 26.11.2003 up to January, 2006. The Variations Committee took a decision that the service road be deleted; this decision was conveyed to the respondent only on 24 th and 26 th June 2003. Submission of the respondent being that up to this time he had already begun work on the construction of the service road and by his reply letter dated 21.7.2003 he disputed the deletion of the service road. A representation dated 09.3.2004 was also submitted by the respondent to the Engineer of the NHAI against the decision to exclude the service road.

(2.) The work progress still being slow, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 31.8.2004 followed by a recommendation dated 04.11.2004 of the Engineer of the NHAI recommending the expulsion of the respondent and the completion of the balance work by the NHAI. This was followed by the expulsion notice dated 05.4.2005 issued to the respondent and the balance work including work of the service road was awarded to a new agency at the cost of the respondent.

(3.) The relevant extract of these findings of the Arbitrator were reproduced in the impugned order, which read as under: