S V CONTRACTORS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these are connected petitions they are disposed of by a common Judgment. The petitioner in O.P.No. 1 of 1991 who is referred hereinafter as the contractor was awarded contract (Ex.B.7) on 16-4-1987 by theSuperintending Engineer, Y.R.P. Circle, Visakhapatnam for the work of excavation of Yeluru Left Main Canal at the entrance of tunnel from K.M. 70.705 to K.M. 71.220 and at the exit of the tunnel fromK.M.73.220toK.M.73.580. The value of the work as per the estimate was Rs.5,92,77,092/-.The contractor quoted the work at Rs.2,80,73,883/-which is52.64 per cent less than the estimated amount and being the lowest tender it was accepted. As per the schedule to the agreement the contractor has to do earth work excavation and depositing on Banks of all soils, namely hard disintegrated rock or soft rock or conglamate rock, fissured and fractured rock (F.F.R.) and boulders upto 3 cubic meters (Cms.) in size and hard rock and boulders more than 3 Cms. in size and conveyancing of excavated soil and rock F.F.R. is to an extent of 9220 Cms. while hard rock is to an extentofl,81,860Cms.Both were to be paid at Rs.48/- per Cm. The other items of the work are not material for the purpose of these cases. A supplemental agreement was entered into on 24-3-1989 (Ex.B.8) under Clause 63 of Preliminary specification of A.P.S.S. as per which the contractor has to do the work of controlled blasting to an extent of 15120 Cms. at the rate of Rs.167/- per Cm. Time for completion of the contract was being extended from time to time and the latest extension was upto 30-4-1991. The contractor was paid at the rate of Rs. 167/- perCm. for 15,118 Cms. He claimed forthe entire 2,38,962 Cms. at the rate of Rs. 188/- per Cm. on the ground that the entire work was done using controlled blasting. As the Department did not agree to pay the amount he filed Writ Petition No. 18280/89 seeking direction to the Government to pay the amount. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the dispute may be referred to Sri Justice Rama Rao, retired Judge of this Court for arbitration and the same was affirmed by the Division Bench in 1990(2) ALT 378.

(2.) Four issues were formulated by the learned Arbitrator, namely: i). Whether there are instructions by the Department to carry out controlled blasting? ii). Whether controlled blasting is done by the claimant and if so to what extent he is entitled. iii). Whether the rate forcontrolled blasting claimed by the claimant is reasonable? iv). Whether the claimant is entitled to interest?

(3.) Before the arbitrator 55 documents were marked on behalf of the contractor while 31 documents were marked on behalf of the Department. Only one witness was examined on behalf of the Department.