RAM GANGADHARAN Vs. STATE OF GOA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri Vivek Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents.

(2.) The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Decree dated 28.04.2008, whereby, Civil Suit bearing no. 35 of 2007, filed by the Appellant was partly decreed and the Respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 24,039/- to the Appellants along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from 19.10.2001 till the date of actual payment.

(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the business of executing construction contracts for the departments of the Appellant no. 1 and its undertakings in the State of Goa and also business of executing the construction contracts of other State Governments in their states and, as such, is a registered Contractor with the Respondent no. 2. According to the Appellants, the Respondent no. 2 for and on behalf of the Respondent no. 3, issued a public tender notice dated 30.08.2001 inviting tenders from the registered contractors of Irrigation department of Respondent no. 1 for construction of a Tail Minor from Ch 1380-2580 mts. of B-1 distributary of Right Bank Main Canal of Tillari Irrigation Project at Ibrampur Village in Pernem Taluka at an estimated cost of R.9,01,654/-. Accordingly, the Appellant submitted a tender for the aforesaid said work at Rs. 9,07,770/- which was accepted by the Respondent no. 2 by letter dated 19.10.2001 and the Appellant executed the Agreement on 19.10.2001 and paid a sum of Rs. 22,539/- as earnest money deposit with the Respondent no. 2 on 19.10.2001. It is further the case of the Appellant that the stipulated date for commencement of work as per the tender notice was from the 10th day after the date of the work order which was 28.10.2001 and the time allowed for completion of the work was 170 days including the monsoon and, as such, the date of completion was 16.04.2002. It is further the contention of the Appellant that immediately after the civil work Order, he approached the Assistant Engineer for taking possession of the site but, however, the possession of the site was not handed over and he was informed that the land where the work was to be executed required to be acquired by the Respondent no. 1 which proceedings were not completed. According to the Appellants, he visited the office of the Assistant Engineer many times in November and Decembet2002 but the site was not handed over to him. It is further his case that in anticipation of getting such work once the possession of site was handed over and considering the time within which such work had to be completed, the Appellant had incurred substantial expenditure on account of different heads as mentioned in the plaint. It is further his case that he learnt in the month of January, 2002 that acquisition proceedings were expected to conclude in February, 2002 and since half of the stipulated period had lapsed without the site being handed over to him, the Appellant insisted with the Respondent no. 2 to hand over the site as the Appellant was incurring heavy losses in keeping his men and machinery idle. It is further his case that by letter dated 08.02.2002, the Assistant Engineer called upon the Appellant to depute his representative along with the qualified technical staff for joint survey work of fixing D.W.C. Alignment, taking initial ground levels. It is further the case of the Appellant that Respondent no. 2 suo motu extended the validity of the contract from 16.04.2002 till 31.12.2002 and the said extension was communicated by the Respondent no. 2 by letter dated 15.04.2002. It is further his case that such extension was necessitated solely on account of the breach committed by the Respondent no. 2 by not handing over the possession of the sit. It is further his case that it was falsely stated in the letter dated 12.11.2002 that the Appellant has no intention in the work and the Appellant was requested to do the needful so that maximum area is brought under irrigation. It is further his case that by Order dated 16.01.2003, the Appellant extended the validity of the contract up to 31.01.2003 and even during the extended period, the Respondent no. 2 failed and neglected to acquire the land for contract work and by its order dated 204.2003, the Respondent no. 2 again extended it for the third time till 31.12.2003 and it was admitted that the site could not be handed over to the Appellant owing to the land acquisition difficulties. It is further his case that the Respondent did not complete the acquisition proceedings within a period of three extensions and the work could not commence. It is further their case that the Respondents utilised the services of the workers of the Appellants to carry out re-survey work for the purpose of acquisition though such work was not within the scope of the tender contract. It is further his case that he had engaged technical persons to carry out the work and who were paid wages during the whole period which the Respondents are liable to compensate the Appellant. It is further his case that on account of the breaches and inaction on the part of the Respondents, the work could not be started before 31.12.2003 which resulted in heavy losses to the Appellant. It is further his case that by letter dated 18.10.2004, the Appellant showed his readiness and willingness to execute the work provided the site was handed over to him and the extension of time was allowed. But, however, the Respondent by letter dated 25.01.2005 informed the Appellant that the scope of the work under the Agreement has changed on account of site condition and, therefore, under Clause 13 of the Agreement, the work is withdrawn and the contract is closed w.e.f. 12.01.2005. Consequently, the suit was filed for compensation and damages as, according to the Appellant, after a period of four years from the date of the work order without any work having been commenced, the Appellant suffered immense damages and, as such, the Appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 26,88,320.07 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the receipt of the notice dated 25.05.2005 until actual payment.