AMAR BUILDERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of aforementioned two writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 17881 of 2014, wherein challenge is to the order dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure P -17), whereby the contract awarded to the petitioner 'for construction of Government College at Bapoli, District Panipat' was terminated and CWP No. 17882 of 2014, wherein challenge is to the order dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure P -19), whereby the contract awarded to the petitioner 'for construction of various type of residences for Revenue Officers in Mini Secretariat, Panipat' was terminated.

(2.) IN CWP No. 17881 of 2014, the petitioner was allotted work for construction of Government College at Bapoli, District Panipat for a contract price of Rs. 5,46,05,836/ -. The said contract was to be completed within 18 months. The petitioner asserts that on furnishing of bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 27,30,3000/ -, the site was handed over to the petitioner, but the drawing of the work were not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner was informed on 01.08.2012 and 29.08.2012 that the pace of construction work is very slow and was advised to increase the speed of work. In response thereto, the stand of the petitioner was that though the construction of two houses was started, but in respect of remaining units there were many decisions pending. It appears that such stand of petitioner is relevant for the other writ petition as the present writ pertains to construction of college building and not the houses Thus, there was delay was on account of not handing over the drawings and because of heavy rains. Thereafter, the petitioner sought release of payment of Rs. 1 crore, but the same was not released. It is pointed out that instead of releasing the outstanding payment, the respondents shot numerous notices stating that the progress of work is not satisfactory and also threatened the petitioner that the action would be initiated against it under clause 59.1 of the contract agreement. Thereafter, the petitioner explained that due to ban of mines in the State, the raw material is not available in the market, which is delaying the timely completion off the project. It is also pointed out thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.06.2014 to the effect that the pace of the work at site was very slow and that the petitioner has completed only 50% of the work. The petitioner alleges that such notice was issued to the petitioner because the petitioner did not meet with the illegal demands of respondent No. 4. Apart from submitting the reply to such show cause notice, the petitioner also filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 - the Superintending Engineer, Circle PWD B & R Branch, Karnal under clause 24.2 of the conditions of contract. However, such appeal was not decided though it was obligatory to decide the same within a period of 90 days. The petitioner asserts that the delay in completion of the project was attributable only to the respondents and that instead of deciding the appeal, the contract itself was terminated on 31.07.2014.

(3.) IT is also pointed out that initially, the Tender Approval Committee accepted the recommendations of the SE (Karnal) for termination of the contract in its meeting held on 12.06.2014. However, in its 2nd meeting held on 17.06.2014, the Tender Approval Committee, which was attended to by 11 Members including Chief Engineers (CE) (Roads); CE (Bridges); CE (Buildings); ED (HSRDC); CE (NABARD) & ED (HARRIDA); CE (NH); CE (E & M), it was decided to issue a show cause notice to the contractor i.e. the petitioner as to why contract should not be terminated. Ultimately, on 24.07.2014, the Tender Approval Committee in its 3rd meeting decided that competent authority i.e. employer may take action for termination of contract in accordance with terms and conditions of contract agreement. It is, thereafter, an office order was issued constituting a Committee consisting of Sub Division Engineers and Junior Engineers for final measurements of the work done.