GOVT. OF M.P. Vs. KHUSIRAM & CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE contract No. IDL of XI/1977 -78 dated 5.4.1977 the respondent was awarded contract for construction of Tilak college, Katni. The tender estimate of work was Rs. 6,41,128.00. The contract was awarded on rates 43.72% above C.S.R. Thus the contract value of work became Rs. 9,21,42900/ -. The work order was issued on 5.4.1977. Period of contract was twenty -four months including rainy season. Thus, the stipulated date of completion of work was 4.4.1979. Originally the building was designed on open foundation. After excavation the presence of while clay necessitated change of design to RCC framed structure. Ex. P. 20 -1 to D. 20 -10 show that drawings of plinth beams and details of columns as per the changed design were finalised on 12.1.1979. Drawings of stair case and details of beams with RCC details thereof were finalised on 1.4.1979 vide Ex. D. 21 -1 to D. 21 -9. Thus finalisation of drawings took nearly twenty -one months whereas the period of the work itself was twenty months. After such finalisation of drawings and designs within remaining three months the petitioner completed about 33% of the work valued at Rs. 3,28,583.00. In the meantime prices of building material shot up due to Government's policy decision. The petitioner applied for upward revised of his rates by 100% above CSR.

(2.) IN this revision filed by the State under Section 19 of the Act the said awarded is assailed on a number of grounds. In fact almost all the issues decided by the learned Tribunal have been challenged till 5.10.1980 vide order dated 4.9.1979 (Ex. D. 14). Since this extension was granted on the application of the contractor and the contractor continued to work even after expiry of the initial stipulated period for completion there was no justification whatsoever for the contractor to have abandoned the work on 7.10.1979. The finding of the learned Tribunal the notwithstanding such abandonment no liability could fastened on the contractor is patently erroneous and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) AS for the finding on Issue No. 1 "was the petitioner prevented from completing the work within the stipulated period because of the respondent's not finalising the drawings of RCC frame structure early and shooting up of building material prices abruptly rendering completion of the work on the old rates impossible", is concerned, no arguments could be advanced on behalf of the petitioner State. We have gone through the reasoning of the learned Tribunal in this behalf and are satisfied that the finding on this issue in contractor's favour was perfectly justified.