RUKMANI Vs. KANDAMANAGALAM PANCHAYAT UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.A3/4397/2006, dated 18.12.2006 cancelling the work order as well as the registration are under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she is a registered panchayat union contractor. She has done substantial work for the local body and semi government organisation. Under the Parliament member constituency development scheme, the petitioner was allotted the construction work of school building by the respondent. The estimate for the construction work is around Rs. 3.75 lakhs. The respondent panchayat Union dragged the execution of the agreement as a result of which the petitioner was not able to carry on the work. In the meanwhile, the respondent panchayat on 1.12.2006 issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to finish the project. The petitioner submitted her reply to the notice explaining the reasons for the delay in taking up the project. While so, the respondent straightaway passed the impugned order dated 18.12.2006 cancelling the work allotted to the petitioner as well as removing the name of the petitioner from the Register of contractors. Aggrieved by such removal of her name from the Register of contractors, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of respondents wherein the following facts have been set out: The petitioner was awarded a contract of construction of a school building at L.R.Palayam on 29.8.2006 at an estimated cost of Rs. 3.75 on the basis of the tender offered by her at. 50% less estimate rate. The said work was to be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of entrustment. As the work was not completed till 1.12.2006, a notice dated 1.12.2006 was issued to the petitioner indicating that action would be taken against her for non-completion of the work. In the reply to the said notice, the petitioner besides alleging various factors which were totally irrelevant, had requested to revise the estimate cost on the ground that the price of the material had gone up. The escalation of cost was due to the petitioner failing to complete the building work within the stipulated time. The petitioner had not submitted her reply to the notice dated 1.12.2006. Consequently, by proceedings dated 18.12.2006 the petitioner was removed from the Register of Contractor of the Panchayat Union. Thus, the counter affidavit sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.