MONSUR AHMED Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two connected causes of action have propelled the petitioner to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, who is an contractor, is aggrieved by two aspects, the first being termination of a contract earlier allotted to him and the second being the action to settle the balance part of the work with the private respondent. Apart from contending that the impugned action is unreasonable and arbitrary, the petitioner has alleged mala fide which, according to the petitioner, vitiates the entire action.

(2.) Before delving into the issues which have arisen for determination, it would be convenient, if the facts of the case are narrated in brief.

(3.) Pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), the petitioner, who is a registered PWD contractor, vide order dt. 24/1/2019, was allotted the Work of Construction and Maintenance of Anipur-Zamuang NEC Road to Dakhin Rampur in the district of Karimganj. The work was under PMGSY. It is the case of the petitioner that though the work was started and substantial progress was achieved, due to the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic, the progress was hampered. According to the petitioner, such unprecedented conditions were "Acts of God" which were beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to have submitted a number of representations which were, however, not paid any heed to. On 9/12/2020, an order was passed terminating the contract work which, according to the petitioner, was without any notice. The petitioner alleges that such unilateral termination was brought to the notice of the Superintending Engineer, who had issued a letter dtd. 12/1/2021 instructing the Executive Engineer to allow the petitioner to continue with the work. The petitioner claims to have continued with the work.