NEBULA ELECTRICALS Vs. CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P10 order issued by the 1st respondent terminating the agreement executed by the petitioner at the risk and cost of the petitioner and forfeiting the security deposit to the Government. The petitioner was awarded with contract of providing USS and LT cable to various labs/blocks in the Government Polytechnic, Kannur by Exhibit P1 work order dated 30.6.2016. Exhibit P1(a) agreement was also executed. The petitioner contends that for the execution of the work, a sub-station had to be constructed by the PWD for installation of the indoor transformer (Unitised sub-station). The 5 th respondent had to accord sanction for the electrical scheme for the installation of the USS system on the basis of the electrical safety guidelines and specifications. It is stated that the construction of the sub- station building was completed only in May 2018 and thereafter, by Exhibit P2, the petitioner was required to undertake and execute the awarded work. It is stated that while the sub-station work was going on, the petitioner had conducted a soil test to prepare the electrical wiring scheme for sanction from the 5th respondent. It is stated that only 8 earth electrodes and pits were provided for in Exhibit P1 work order. However, the soil test revealed high soil resistance in the locality and it was found that 25 numbers of earth electrodes and pits were necessary to install the USS system. Exhibit P3 series of documents are relied on in support of this contention. The petitioner thereupon intimated the 2 nd respondent by Exhibit P4 letter requesting for revision of the work order, since substantial revision was required in the work. However, no reply was received. On 8.6.2018, the 1 st respondent issued Exhibit P5 letter requiring the petitioner to undertake and complete the work immediately. The petitioner again informed the 1st respondent and requested necessary revisions in the work order. It is stated that Exhibit P8 show cause notice was thereafter issued to the petitioner and disregarding his replies, Exhibit P10 order was passed, terminating the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner, which is under challenge.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the site was not even formally handed over to the petitioner after completion of the civil work of the sub-station and that the issue raised by the petitioner with regard to additional earth electrodes required due to the high soil resistance had not been addressed by respondents 1 or 2 at any point of time. It is stated that it was only after the space for preparing the earth pits and placing the additional earth electrodes are earmarked and the electrical plans duly approved by the 5 th respondent that the petitioner would be in a position to start the work. It is stated that all these matters had been highlighted in the requests and the reply given by the petitioner to respondents 1 and 2, but Exhibit P10 order has been passed without considering any of the same.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been placed on record on behalf of the 1st respondent. It is stated that though the work was awarded to the petitioner on 3.06.2016, the petitioner had failed to execute the agreement within time and it was only on paying a fine of Rs.25000/- that the agreement had been executed pursuant to Exhibit R1(b) order dated 30.9.2016. The agreement was executed on 30.10.2016 with a completion period of 75 days. It is stated that the agreement was not only for erection of transformer, but for cabling, providing sub panels and other works. It is stated that though there was some delay in constructing the shed to accommodate the transformer, there was no hindrance in executing other parts of the agreement schedule and obtaining part payments for those items. It is stated that the site is a working fully functional institution and the petitioner had been shown the details of the work to be carried out in the various buildings and the campus by the officers of the respondent. But the petitioner did not bring any materials to the site after the execution of the agreement. It is stated that the petitioner had been put on notice repeatedly as to his failure to carry out the work; but the petitioner did not take any steps to commence the work in spite of repeated reminders. It is stated the sub-station building work was completed on 28.03.2018 and extension was granted for carrying out the work awarded to the petitioner without fine, but the petitioner did not take any efforts to even start the work. It is stated that the petitioner did not bring transformer or any materials to the site till 7.12.2019 and it was in the above circumstances that the show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has requested further time upto 31.01.2020 for completing the work. But even thereafter no efforts were taken to start the work. It is stated that it was in the above circumstances that the termination order was issued.