S.D. CONSTRUCTION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ application the petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to not prematurely cancel the contract awarded to the petitioner No. 1, on the ground that the notices which have been impugned herein, run contrary to the arrangements that had been reached by the petitioner and the respondents in the meeting held on 9/6/2022. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that without adhering to the time limit as allowed, the respondents by letter dtd. 23/9/2022 have cancelled the said contract.

(2.) Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioners firstly has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dtd. 24/6/2022, wherein it has been recorded and indicated therein, that pursuant to the conference held on 9/6/2022, the writ petitioner was called upon to accelerate the progress of the work, and it was agreed on the request of the writ petitioner, that extension be allowed till 31/12/2022, to complete the work. The learned Senior counsel submits that in spite of this clear assurance and agreement arrived at with the respondents, by the impugned letter dtd. 23/9/2022, the contract was cancelled. Without going into the other claims, he submits that the cancellation in the face of the letter dtd. 24/6/2022, is patently illegal and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSG assisted by Mr. B. Shangrit, learned counsel, has placed reliance on the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, to show that that the decision arrived at was due to the fact that in spite of the concession, given to the writ petitioner, the progress of the work remained unsatisfactory. The records have been produced today before this Court and the learned DSG, has drawn the attention of this Court to the Minutes of the meeting held on 9/6/2022, and submits that the decision of the Additional Director General as contained in the Minutes though allowing for a prescribed, realistic time frame, it also inserted a rider that the progress of the work was to be closely monitored on a weekly basis, and any recommendation for cancellation of the subject contract was to be indicated by 10/7/2022, by the Chief Engineer (respondent No. 2). He therefore, submits that due to the tardy progress of the work, and as the matter concerns a Defense Installation, and further that enough concession had been given to the writ petitioner, the respondents were constrained to cancel the subject contract. Reference has also been made by the learned DSG to the letters dt. 14/7/2022 and 5/8/2022, to show that the respondents were monitoring the work and that the progress was observed to be dismal, which therefore resulted in the impugned action.