GOVARDHAN KUMAR VARJANI Vs. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, a Graduate -Engineer -Contractor, was awarded with the work for 'Construction of a Sanskrutik Kendra' (cultural building) at Samblpur which was being funded by Opp. Party -Mahanadi Coalfields Limited under the Peripheral Development Scheme.

(2.) IT is the case of the Petitioner that tenders were invited during the financial year 2002 -03 and the Petitioner having been found to be lowest tendered, was issued with the necessary work order and was directed to commence the work from 2.2.2004 and the period of completion was stipulated to be within one year there from i.e. 1.2.2005 with an estimated cost of Rs. 45,20,705.56.

(3.) MR . Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on a noting made in the concerned file, which is annexed at page 17 to the Writ Petition, by the Superintending Engineer (Civil), which indicates that 'Due to pending decision of roofing, the finishing work of Main Hall would not be taken up at this stage'. In this respect, it is submitted that although the work was stopped on account of the suggestion for change of roofing, the final decision was taken by the MCL only on 3.1.2006 directing that the roofing of the Hall is to be done with CGI sheets as per the provision in the original agreement and therefore, the suggestion of the Committee headed by the RDC was turned down by the MCL only on 3.1.2006 under Annexure -5. Thereafter, once again the Petitioner was requested to apply for extension of time giving construction schedule programme to complete the work within 31.3.2006. The Petitioner asserts that he had applied for extension of time vide Annexure -2 stating therein that the Petitioner was not responsible for the delay and the delay was caused for the reasons noted herein above and therefore, could not be ascribed to the Petitioners. It appears from other various communications between the parties that while the MCL had granted extension of time till 31.3.2006, thereafter under the purported ground that the Petitioner has failed to complete the work within the extended period of time, a letter dated 15.6.2006 under Annexure -11 terminating the contract was issued which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application.