HARE KRISHNA TALUKDAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, the learned advocate for the petitioner and also heard Mr. A. Kalita, Advocate, the learned Standing Counsel for the Industries Department, representing all the respondents.

(2.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a contractor, is seeking, amongst others, a direction to the respondents to increase the rates in respect of contract works awarded to the petitioner for construction of R.C.C. Office building for ADCI Office at Bajali and ADCI Office at Sonari as compensation due to price escalation and in terms of compensation event as envisaged in the Contract Agreement.

(3.) The case projected in the writ petition is that pursuant to an Invitation for Bid (IFB) by the Executive Engineer, Industries and Commerce Department (respondent No.3), published in the newspapers on 18.02.2012, for construction of ADCI Office building at Bajali in Barpeta district and Sonari in Sivasagar district, the petitioner had participated in the tender process. In the tender selection committee meeting held on 09.04.2012, the bid of the petitioner was held to be technically qualified and when price bid was opened on 2.5.2012, the petitioner was the lowest (L-1) tenderer for both works. However, when the work order was not issued, the petitioner issued an Advocate's notice dated 24.8.2012 to the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 by his reply letter dated 21.09.2012 informed the petitioner that the work order would be issued after completion of official formalities. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of by order dated 5.10.2013 passed in W.P.(C) 5073/12, thereby directing the authorities to issue work order in respect of the said work to the petitioner. Subsequently, work order was issued on 07.11.2013 in respect of both the work, stipulating that the work be completed within 18 months from the date of issue of work order. The respondent No.3 handed over the work site at Sonari to the petitioner on 8.12.2013 and the work site of Bajali was handed over on 21.12.2013. After commencement of work, on 21.02.2014, the petitioner made a request for enhancement of rates by at-least 35% because of inordinate delay in issuing work order and handing over the work site, by which time price of all commodities and labour charges had increased. As no steps were taken, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing another writ petition claiming compensation and/or cost escalation in terms of the Schedule of Rates ('SoR' for short) of Assam Public Works Department (APWD for short) or 35% increase in the quoted rates of the bid. This Court by order dated 06.09.2016, in WP(C) 2023/14 directed the respondent No.3 to look into the representation dated 21.02.2014 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of 6 (six) weeks considering the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract. The said order of this Court was communicated to the respondent No.3 on 15.09.2016. However, the said representation by the petitioner was rejected. The said rejection order dated 14.10.2016 is under challenge in the present writ petition.