AJAY JOHARI Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 11,000/- along with interest against the Municipal Council, Shivpuri on the allegation that the plaintiff" was one of the tenderers to the NIT which was issued for construction of 'v shape drainage in the Municipal Council, Shivpuri at Raghvendra Nagar Colony. The tender of the plaintiff was accepted on 25. 6. 1991. Thereafter an agreement was executed which is Ex. D/3, on record, on 24. 9. 1991. Even after the execution of the agreement the defendant did not issue work order. The plaintiff continuously waited for the work order and without granting opportunity of hearing the security amount of the plaintiff of Rs. 1,600/- was deducted and from the final bill of another contract of Ward No. 10, Harijan Basti, Rs. 6,679/- was illegally deducted. The plaintiff came to know that the contract has been given to one of the employees of the Municipal Council, Shivpuri namely, Mantoo Khan in order to give him illegal benefit out of the contract. Thus sum of Rs. 8,279/- has been illegally deducted by the respondent. Notice was served. Suit was filed for recovery of the amount of Rs. 11,000/- along with interest.

(3.) MUNICIPAL Council in the written statement denied the plaint allegations and contended that in spite of the notice the plaintiff did not execute the agreement and on 25. 9. 1991 the work order was issued but the plaintiff did not execute the work, hence the earnest money was forfeited and the amount was deducted. The order of Administrator which was passed by Administrator on 27. 1. 1992. Recovery made was tried to be justified on the ground of delay in execution of work and as such the Council has suffered the loss as the contract was given on 25% above CSR from 12. 5. 1992. However, it was not denied that before forefeiting the security and cancelling the contract notice was not issued to the plaintiff.