TIRUCHY CONSTRUCTIONS CO A FIRM OF ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS Vs. TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TIRUCHI Construction Company is the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Aggrieved against the order of 2nd respondent dated 9. 4. 1986 terminating the contract, the petitioner has failed W. P. No. 11100 of 1986 with further prayer to refer the claims of the petitioner including the various clauses mentioned in the writ petition to arbitration as per Tamil Nadu standard Specifications. Against the order of the second respondent dated 8. 10. 1986 demanding a sum of Rs. 2,70,177 being the excess amount for the completion of the unfinished work in the Agreement No. 15/83-84, the petitioner has filed the second writ petition namely W. P. No. 12247 of 1986. If the petitioner is able to succeed in the first writ petition, the notice impugned in the second writ petition has to be quashed, hence by the following order both the above writ petitions can be disposed of.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: THE petitioner being successful tenderer, entered into an agreement, agreement No. 15 of 1983-84 with respondents 1 and 2 for construction of 11 different types of works at Kumara Perumal Farm Science Center for an aggregate value of Rs. 9. 40 lakhs-on 6. 5. 1983. THE period stipulated for completion of work was six months. THE tender was submitted on 20. 1. 1983 and the same was accepted on 17. 3. 1983. THE foundation specification was changed from brick works to random rubble masonry. This was finalised and site handed over only on 6. 10. 1983, five months after date of agreement and ten months after date of tender. Further, there were standing crops in part of the site. THE work in respect of quarters could not be taken up. THE site was not cleared of the crops and handed over to enable the petitioner to commence work within the stipulated 6 months. From January, 1984 to June, 1984 no work could be done for want of Junior Engineer. In October, 1984 prices of steel were increased by government of India. Even though respondents 1 and 2 promised to supply cement and steel, they failed to supply the same. THE work could not make progress entirely due to the conduct and acts of the respondents 1 and 2 and their staff. THEy alone were responsible for the delay. In January, 1985 all prices had risen abnormally, hence the petitioner asked for modest increase of 20 per cent in the rates. This was not even considered and was ignored. THE petitioner never requested for grant of extension of time. THE respondent also did not grant extension of time till now. Orally he was asked to continue and complete the work. Tamil Nadu Standard Specifications was not made fully applicable to this' Contract agreement and works' by the agreement No. 15 of 1983-84, dated 6. 5. 1983. By the impugned order, the second respondent informed that the contract was terminated with forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit, additional security deposit and withheld amount as per Clause 3 of the agreement. But no final measurements were taken of the works done nor final bills prepared and processed till now. THE petitioner through their counsel issued a notice on 6. 5. 1986 to the respondents requesting them to refer the dispute to arbitration. THEy sent a reply on 24. 5. 1986 and a final reply on 11. 6. 1986. However, they did not send any definite reply with regard to the request for arbitration. THEreafter, for the remaining work, the respondents 1 and 2 allotted the same to respondents 3 and 4 by splitting up the work into a piecemeal item-wise. It is submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 have no right to proceed with the works covered by the agreement No. 15/1983-84 without finalising the account of the petitioner. As per Tamil Nadu Standard specifications, the only alternative is to refer the matter to arbitration. To this course also the respondents 1 and 2 have not expressed their willingness. In those circumstance, the petitioner company has approached this Court to refer the matter for arbitration in respect of the points raised in the writ petition. Since without settlement of the claim of the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 made a claim for Rs. 2,70,177 the petitioner has filed the second writ petition challenging the same.

(3.) I have carefully considered the rival submissions.