SUDESH KUMAR MEHTA Vs. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition praying for a relief of quashing notices of recovery, dated 14 9 1992 (Annexure P 5), 10 12 1992 (Annexure P 6) and 6 11 2005 (Annexure P 7).

(2.) THE brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was awarded a contract for constructing a building in the year 1986. The work allotted to the petitioner was required to be completed in the year 1989. The dispute arose on account of the fact when the work was not completed within the stipulated period. The respondents consequently terminated the contract sometime in the year 1989 1990 and thereafter issued the impugned notices to the petitioner on 14 9 1992 (Annexure P 5) and on 10 12 1992 (Annexure P 6). As the amount was not deposited by the petitioner, proceedings under the provisions the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was initiated against the petitioner and Revenue Recovery Certificate under Section 146 of the Code, Annexure P 7, was issued to the petitioner on 6 11 2005, being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents, per contra, submits that as the petitioner was not executing the work in accordance with the agreement and undertaking further construction in accordance therewith, therefore, the respondent/authorities gave repeated reminders to the petitioner asking him to complete the construction work in the year 1988 and 1989 in response to which the petitioner had filed replies as is evident from a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner himself, Annexure P 2 and Annexure P 3 which are the responses submitted by the petitioner to the letters issued by the authorities on 14 5 1989 and 16 7 1990 etc. It is submitted that thereafter the authorities terminated the contract and informed the petitioner that the amount and expenses incurred by the State for completion of the contract would be recovered from the petitioner pursuant to which the petitioner had filed a representation, Annexure P 2, before the authorities on 25 5 1991, in response to which the petitioner was informed by the letter dated 6 6 1991, Annexure P 3 that the petitioner's contract has been terminated and that as no work was undertaken by the petitioner for a considerable period of time, therefore, preparation of a final bill was not possible and that the petitioner would be liable to reimburse the expenses incurred by the State towards the completion of contract.