ESSCO FURNACES PVT. LTD. Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st Respondent invited quotations for supply and erection of gas furnaces in several panchayats in Palakkad District. The petitioner company submitted tenders. By Exhibit P2 letter dated 20.2.2019, the petitioner's quotation for Rs.17,55,000/- for each furnace was accepted and the petitioner was directed to enter into an agreement with regard to erecting the furnaces in three panchayats. Thereafter, on 7.8.2019, the petitioner was awarded similar work for four more panchayats. Regarding the work awarded as per Exhibit P2, an agreement was entered into on 23.7.2019 as can be seen from Exhibit P5. The work was to be completed in 6 months after the site is handed over. The work awarded as per Exhibit P5 was also to be completed within a period of 6 months. Going by the dates on which the work was awarded, the work should have been completed by February, 2020.

(2.) It would appear from the averments in the Writ petition that the petitioner had a grievance that the necessary infrastructure was not available at the site, to facilitate the installation of the gas furnaces. Exhibits P9 to P12 indicate such grievances. Even though there had been several communications between the parties, the fact remains that out of the work entrusted in seven Panchayats, the petitioner completed the work in one Panchayat alone. It is the petitioner's case that a detailed representation was placed before the Respondents explaining the reasons for the delay. As the main reason being the outbreak of the Covid19 pandemic, it is requested that the petitioner may not be penalised for the delay and may be granted an extension of another 3 months for completion of the work. However, by Exhibit P23 and P27 orders dated 11.8.2020, the 2nd Respondent terminated the contract to the petitioner at his risk and cost and forfeited the security amounts deposited by the petitioner towards the loss sustained by the department. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the orders of termination of the contract.

(3.) Heard Sri A.Balagopalan, the counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi K.V., Government Pleader on behalf of the 2nd respondent and Sri Nijoy P.K., the counsel for the 1st respondent District Panchayat.