V SARAVANA SELVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition for quashing the order passed by the second respondent dated 30. 12. 2002 and for a direction to pay the bill for 37 borewell works without any deduction towards fine or tender deposit along with 24% interest per annum on the bill amount due to the petitioner for all the 59 borewell works done from the date of completion of work till date of realisation.

(2.) THE facts may be noticed in brief:-Petitioner is a registered contractor who has undertaken certain works under the Corporation of madurai, Respondent No. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, the work relating to 59 borewells had been entrusted to him. The work essentially consists of two parts, namely, civil work of drilling borewells and constructing its bed and platform for fixing the storage tank. The other portion of the work is fitting work, such as erection of submersible motor pumpset and fitting of GI pipe and electrical and wiring work for the motor pumpset. Materials for the latter type of work are to be supplied by the Corporation. It is asserted by the petitioner that the civil work of drilling 40 borewells in South Zone was completed by 20. 10. 2002 and similarly civil work of drilling 5 borewells in East Zone was completed on 15. 10. 2002. However, the fitting work could not be undertaken as the second respondent has not supplied the materials till 30. 11. 2002. Out of 14 other borewells in South Zone, there was objection and obstruction from the public as a result of which deviation order was issued in respect of 10 borewells for shifting the place of work. Such deviation order was issued on 20. 11. 2002 and, therefore, two months period should be counted from 20. 11. 2002. In respect of 4 remaining borewells, the second respondent did not take any steps for removal of the obstructions/hindrances. The details relating to those 4 borewells are as follows:-Bore Well Work 1) SZ. 6/est. 113/02 nature of Obstruction: high tension electricity line passed over the place, so the Compressor engine vehicle could not be taken there. Bore well work 2) SZ. 6est. 157/02 nature of Obstruction: this place fells in Central Market Area. The place was not cleared for months together. Bore well work 3) SZ. 6est. 187/02 nature of Obstruction: a lorry load of granite stones and bars have been stored in that place by the Corporation of madurai. The 2nd respondent did not clear it for more than 3 months. Bore well work 4) SZ. 6est. 230/02 nature of Obstruction: after completion of initial drilling works a neighbour had drawn electricity supply line over that place. This was not cleared for very long time. Since the Corporation officials had not taken any steps to supply the materials, the petitioner had made two separate representations on 30. 10. 2002 to the second respondent and other officials which were followed by telegrams dated 6. 11. 2002 and 16. 11. 2002. Subsequently, when the petitioner came to know that the materials were available at the Corporation storeroom, he took immediate steps to obtain the materials and the fitting work was completed. While the matter stood thus, on 16. 1. 2003, the petitioner received a letter dated 30. 12. 2002 wherein it was indicated that the petitioner had not commenced the work for 5 borewells and the contract in respect of those borewells was cancelled. The communication further indicated that the name of the petitioner was removed from the list of contractors and included in the blacklist of contractors. It is the specific assertion of the petitioner that such letter dated 30. 12. 2002 was served only on 16. 1. 2003, by which date the petitioner had already completed the work for all the 5 borewells mentioned in the letter. It is the further case of the petitioner that the second respondent and other subordinate officials had already taken measurement for 59 works, however, the preparation of bills and payment had been long delayed. The petitioner sent a telegram dated 29. 1. 2003 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police stating that payment of bribe was expected with respect to preparation and payment of bills. After such telegram was issued, the second respondent got further intricated and thereafter he had started imposing fine (deduction of amount) from the bills without any rhyme or reason. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he had sent telegrams to different authorities for settlement of the bills. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned letter dated 30. 12. 2002 and for a further direction to the second respondent to refund of the fine amount deducted in 21 bills and to pay the bill amount for the other works.

(3.) DURING pendency of the writ petition by order dated 23. 7. 2003, a learned single Judge of this court, while granting time to the second respondent to file counter, had observed: