TOSHI LONGKUMER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction of the like nature for enforcement of the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder.

(2.) The petitioner herein functions in the name and style of M/s T.L. Constructions came into contractual agreement with the respondents for construction works at the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Chare, District-Tuensang, Nagaland. The respondent No.3 acting as construction agency for and on behalf of respondent No.2 floated Tender Notice bearing No.RITES/CP/TC/NVS/TUENSANG/PH-A/Pkg-II/2005/2R on 17-02-2005 for construction of Phase-(Pkg-II) Buildings for Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Chare, District-Tuensang, Nagaland. The petitioner participated in the tender bid.

(3.) The petitioner was successful in the tender bid for construction of school building, kitchen and dining external development work, construction of UG tank, tube well, drainage system, water supply system, road work open surface drains, internal and external electrical works. The scope of work of the contract is mentioned in the Price Bid Document (Volume-II) of the tender document of the contract. The contract work was for a total price of Rs.4,36,01,897.26/-. Agreement was executed between respondent No.3 and the petitioner's firm M/s T.L. Constructions on 22.08.2005. However, when the petitioner's firm started the work as per the agreement, there was delay in the completion of the work due to several attending factors beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner's firm was granted extension of time on several occasions. The factors mainly hampering the progress of the work was cited as increased insurgency activities in Tuensang District. In the year 2006, one staff of RITES Ltd was kidnapped from the project site. At another point of time, an insurgent group camped at the construction site forcing the workers to desert the site resulting in dislocation of the project. There were multiple demands of extortion which also interrupted the work. Added to this problems, were the road conditions which was not favourable for smooth transportation of materials resulting in the delay of the work. The respondent No.3 granted time to the petitioner's firm for completion of work as many as eight times. Despite all these, the works could not be completed.