K.P. LATHEEF Vs. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS original petition is filed to quash Ext.P -6 demand notice issued by the second respondent for realisation of a sum of Rs.5,27,509 due as damages alleged to have been suffered by the Government on re -arrangement of work which was originally awarded to the petitioner by Ext.P -1 letter.The work in question relates to widening,improving and laying the approach road from N -H.47 to Indian Rare Earths,Chavara.

(2.) FIRST respondent invited tenders for the above work in June,1978.The petitioner being the lowest bidder,the work was awarded to him by Ext.P -1 letter dated 4th January 1979 of the first respondent,and pursuant to Ext.P -1,the necessary agreement was executed by the petitioner on 20th July 1979.Under the terms of the agreement,the work has to be executed from the property acquired for the said purpose by the Government.The petitioner started the work immediately after the execution of agreement and according to the petitioner,when he started the work,the owners of the property whose lands were acquired on both sides caused obstruction as they did not allow the construction to proceed until compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is paid to them.The owners had made representations to Government claiming compensation,copy of one such representation(dated nil)is Ext,P -2 and a copy of which was served on the petitioner also.On receipt of Ext.P -2,the petitioner also made a representation Ext.P -4(a)dated 30th July 1980 to Government.In Ext.P -4(a)the petitioner,detailed the circumstances which resulted in the petitioner being not able to carry out the work because of the obstruction caused,by the owners whose property has been acquired and submitted to the Government that he will not be able to execute the work until compensation in full is paid to the owners of land and requested the Government to relieve him from the contractual obligations and to pay him the damages he has already suffered.The Government has not so far passed any order on Ext.P -4(a ),gays the petitioner.Shortly,after Ext.P -4(a ),the first respondent served Ext.P -3 notice dated 20th August 1980 on the petitioner stating that the petitioner has not started work so far and if he does not complete the work within 10 days,the work will be terminated and got done by other agency at the petitioner's risk and cost.To Ext.P -3 the petitioner sent Ext.P -4 reply dated 8th September 1980 stating that the delay was caused solely on account of the lapses on the part of the Department in not handing over the site and clearing the site by cutting of trees,removal of telephone and electric posts,pillars,slab 's,demolition of buildings on the acquired land,etc.The petitioner submits that he has not received any reply to Ext.P -4 or Ext.P -4(a)so far.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent repudiating the averments contained in the original petition.According to the counter affidavit,the site was handed over to the petitioner well in time and the said fact is reflected in the agreement itself and Ext.P -5 is only a formal intimation to the petitioner which does not depict the correct position,that the petitioner could have commenced the work at places where there was no obstruction and,at any rate,the petitioner is liable to compensate the Government to the extend of the amount demanded under Ext.P -6 being the difference between the initial tender amount and subsequent tender amount for re -arranging the work through other agency as per Ext.P -10.