R JANAKI Vs. PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR, DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT (TSUNAMI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a class-I contractor. She has filed the present writ petitions for a direction to allow her to withdraw from agreement stated to have been completed on 25.01.2008 based on her representation, dated 03.5.2008 and for a further direction against the third respondent to refund security deposit amount of Rs.10,52,000/- given in the form of bank guarantee and also challenged the subsequent order of the third respondent, dated 11.06.2008 by which the third respondent has terminated contract.

(2.) The petitioner was given the work of building houses called Tsunami Rehabilitation House under Rajiv Gandhi Rehabilitation Programme at Tsunami Rehabilitation Permanent Houses) at Tsunami hit areas. As per the Government scheme, the work to be done through the District Implementation Units, namely the third respondent. The work was allotted to the petitioner being the class-I contractor on the basis of the tender process and the work of construction of 192 tsunami houses at Keelamundhal village, Mariyur, Chinna Erwadi, Sadaimunianvalasal and Vallinokkam in Ramanathapuram District were allotted by the third respondent which was to the extent of Rs.456.96 lakhs. Based on that acceptance, the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.10,52,000/- towards EMD, as performance security by way of bank guarantee in favour of the second respondent through the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank at Sayalkudi. An agreement was entered by the petitioner along with the third respondent on 25.01.2008 and according to the petitioner, she has received a copy of the agreement only on 06.06.2008.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that when pursuant to the contract she has proceeded to lay down roads, the previous land owners and nearby occupants have raised objections and that was reported by her to the third respondent on 28.03.2008 and according to the petitioner, in such circumstances and because of the hindrance cost of the work has increased. According to the petitioner, the third respondent sent a notice on 17.03.2008 stating that the Project Director, Tsunami Project Implementation Unit has programmed to visit the site on 20.03.2008 and the petitioner should complete the work process and at the time it was replied by the petitioner stating that there is no question of completion of work due to the abovesaid reasons. Apprehending that the third respondent is likely to block list the petitioner, she has filed the present writ petition for the relief as stated above on the ground that the work site was not handed over till June 2008 even though the agreement was entered in January 2008 itself.