RAMAKANT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order, contained in letter No. 387 dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure-17), whereby engineer-in-charge, Airports Authority of India (respondent No. 6) has rescinded the contract dated 2.12.2002 pertaining to construction of shoulders, widening of Turning pad and construction of perimeter road at Jai Prakash Narayan International Airport, Patna, and letter No. 385 dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure 17/1) requesting the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Govind Mitra Road, Patna for encashment of Bank guarantee.

(2.) In short, the relevant facts are that on 17.9.2002 Airport Authority of India published tender notice in Hindustan Times for the above work at the estimated cost of Rs. 332.69 lacs. According to the petitioner, the time allowed was 15 months, which was subsequently reduced to 6 months. The petitioner submitted his tender paper on 30.10.2002 quoting Rs. 2,55,70,601/- i.e. 18% less than estimated cost. On 15/18.11.2002 he was intimated by the Airport Authority about acceptance of his tender, whereupon an agreement was signed, on 2.12.2002. According to the case of the petitioner on 4.12.2002 he sought permission to visit the site at Patna Airport and on 11.12.2002 requested for grant of temporary pass for taking initial level of site. On 14.12.2002 he requested respondent No. 8 to handover site for execution of work, provide space for dumping material as well as for implanting hot Mix Plant and for temporary hutments for labourers. Permission of heavy vehicles from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. was allowed on 17.1.2003. It is alleged that time schedule for completion of work was reduced from 15 months to 6 months and at the same time restriction was put for carrying on construction only during dead-night i.e. after 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. It is further alleged that some time due to delayed flight entry pass were issued only after 11 p.m. or thereafter and, thus, even the said working hour was reduced to only 4 to 6 hours. It is further alleged that the State of Bihar was under severe cold wave from the end of December, 2002 to whole of January, 2003 and normal life was paralysed causing impossible to carry out the construction work during night. It is further alleged that during the visit of Hon'ble President of India and Hon'ble Vice-president of India and other VIPs petitioner was not allowed to continue with the construction work even on days apart from Sunday and other holidays due to security reason. According to the petitioner, permanent entry pass of labourers is yet to be issued in the name of verification and every day 2 hours time is consumed by the respondents in issuing temporary pass. Despite all these odds the petitioner claims to have completed cleanliness of work site and foundation work and is in a position to complete entire work within one month as materials are dumped at site, Hot Mix Plant is almost implanted and 160 labourers are in readiness to complete the construction work. It is alleged that most of the time of 6 months were consumed by the respondents in completing one or the other formalities viz verification of labourers, test of materials, soil and lime testing, commercial slack lime testing and approval of formation level of perimeter road. It is further alleged that in the absence of approval of formation level or test report of materials, soil and lime and commercial lime, which were the job of the respondents and which they completed in May, 2003, the petitioner could not consume these 5/6 months. On 23.2.2003/17.3.2003/4/4/2003 respondents issued 7 days show cause notice alleging slow progress of work and petitioner explained that the slow progress is due to reason beyond his control as the formalities on the part of respondents have not been completed. He also submitted the progress chart detailing the execution of work, yet. Respondent No. 6 issued the impugned orders. It has, thus, been contended that the delay in commission of work is attributed to respondents. The petitioner claims to have invested one crore over dumping materials, implantation of hot mix plant and over labourers and, thus, has given undertaking that if one month clear time is provided he is in readiness to complete the entire work within the said time.

(3.) In the supplementary affidavit, petitioner has stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent-Airport Authority of India has issued fresh tender notice for the said work for an estimated cost of Rs. 249.90 lacs within five months and fixed 10.10.2003 as the last date for filing of tender documents. A copy of the said notice published in daily 'Hindustan Times' has been annexed as Annexure-18. It is, thus, stated that the respondents have not allowed one month time to the petitioner for completion of work and vide fresh tender they are going to grant five months further time for completion of work from the date of acceptance of tender. It is further stated that there is absolutely no complaint about the quality of work and, hence, the action of the respondents in the facts and circumstances manifests arbitrariness and mala fide as delay is directly attributed to the respondents in completing formalities on their part.