AMIT CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 29th May, 2012 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Aligarh, whereby he has been blacklisted and an amount of Rs. 1,35,302/- deposited by him as security money, has been forfeited.

(2.) It appears that tenders were invited by the Nagar Nigam, Aligarh for construction of a road (interlocking) and a drain by the side of the road in a particular locality, in response to which, the petitioner along with others, submitted the tender. The tender of the petitioner was accepted and an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Nagar Nigam on 26.07.2011, in pursuance whereof a security deposit of about Rs. 1,36,000/- was made by the petitioner.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he started the work on 26.07.2011 itself but on account of certain objections being raised by the residents of the locality, who wanted that the construction of road and the drain be made at a higher level as compared to the specifications approved by the concerned engineers, the work had to be stopped on 16.09.2011. The concerned Junior Engineer submitted a report to the high ups on 24.09.2011 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), which has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit, while replying paragraph 10 of the writ petition. The petitioner also made several representations dated 19th September, 20th September, 21st September, 24th September, 30th September, 7th October & 19th October, 2011 apprising concerned officials about the hardships being faced by him due to objections of the local residents and resultant stoppage of work, but in stead of taking any remedial measure, a notice dated 3rd November, 2011 was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Engineer to finish the job, failing which, action was to be taken against him. The said notice was replied by the petitioner on 5th November, 2011 stating therein that at no point of time any oral or written direction was given to him to complete the work as per the revised specifications or to construct the road and drain at higher level and that in any case, such orders were required to be given in writing. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a letter dated 19.10.2011, whereby a request was made to complete the job as per the new specifications/revised estimates and to construct the road & drain at a higher level. The submission of the petitioner in this regard is that this letter is ante-dated and had been prepared only after petitioner's reply dated 05.11.2011 was given in response to the notice dated 03.11.2011. The petitioner has annexed photostat copy of the envelop as Annexure 7 to the writ petition to show that the letter allegedly dated 19.10.2011 was posted on 05.11.2011. Prior to it, the petitioner never received any order in writing asking him to do the work as per the revised estimates/specifications.