GATHAN DATTA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience facts may be noted from Arb.P. No.03 of 2020. Petitioner, an individual (hereinafter to be referred to as the bidder or contractor), was awarded a work order dated 07.03.2019 by Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division No.IV for execution of the work namely, "Muhuri irrigation project at Kalshi, South Tripura District/Barrage Apartment work, main canal and branches (Unit-I & II) Phase-II". Pursuant to the said work order the petitioner and the Executive Engineer executed a formal agreement. Despite awarding of the work contract the Executive Engineer concerned did not handover the site to enable the petitioner to commence the construction. The petitioner, therefore, wrote letters to the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division No.IV urging him to handover the site. Since despite several letters from the petitioner the site was not handed over, the petitioner once again wrote on 02.01.2020 to the said authority pointing out that despite request site was not handed over to him on the ground that land was not yet acquired. He had to start the construction within 15 days of the date of the work order and complete it within six months. Due to delay the cost of materials is escalating. It would be difficult for him to execute the work if the site is not handed over shortly. He pointed out that the monsoon may start from middle of March, 2020 making his task of carrying out construction very difficult. He, therefore, requested that the site be handed over immediately. Since the site was still not handed over the petitioner wrote to the Superintending Engineer on 05.02.2020 and reiterated all the averments made by him in the earlier letter to the Executive Engineer and repeated his request for handing over the site immediately.

(2.) Finally on 29.05.2020 the petitioner wrote to the Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department. He referred to the past correspondences on record and contended that for over 12 months after issuance of the work order, the site has not been handed over. In the meantime, he has kept the manpower and machinery on standby which has resulted into loss and injury to him. He had quoted the lowest price and, therefore, awarded the contract. The construction had to begin within 15 days of the issuance of work order but the site has not been handed over nearly a year later. He, therefore, raised the following monetary claims and urged the Executive Engineer to act as a sole arbitrator or to appoint the disputes to a sole arbitrator who may be appointed in terms of Clause 22 of the agreement:

(3.) Since there was no response from the respondents even after this notice, the petitioner filed the arbitration petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator for resolving the said disputes.