INDIAN BUILDERS Vs. AWADHESH KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application for modification in the Original case namely, CWJC No. 1423 of 1995(R) is taken up together for disposal as the matters are inter related.

(2.) The petitioner moved this Court in CWJC No. 1423 of 1995(R) praying for direction to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Subarnarekha Canal Division, Jamshedpur and Executive Engineer, Halubani Subarnarekha Canal Division for return of the bank guarantees since no work was done during several last years. The petitioner was engaged as a Contractor with the respondents for excavation and bed lining of Chandil Canal and also the work of excavation of residual canal work. On the basis of the agreement, the works was to be completed within six months but it appears, for many reasons, it continued till 1990 and according to the petitioner, 80 per cent of the work was completed and running bill was submitted by it being Bill Nos. 1 to 57 and payments were also made on the basis of those bills. For the residual work also running bill No. 58 to 64 were submitted during the year 1990 and measurements were made, according to the petitioner, unilaterally by the Department and some payments were made out of those residual running bills. As the funds were not available, the petitioner moved the Chief Engineer to close down the contract and ultimately on 7.3.1995 the contract was closed by the Chief Engineer and the directions were made by the Executive Engineer as a result of which the petitioner submitted his final bill amounting to Rs. 4 crores and odd.

(3.) At the time of entering into the agreement of contract work, the petitioner had submitted bank guarantees amounting to several lacs and odd and although the work could not be continued due to shortage of fund, as per the direction of the Department, the petitioner had to renew his bank guarantee till December, 1994 incurring a heavy expenditure. When the petitioner's bill had not been finalised and the Executive Engineer was pressing the petitioner to renew his bank guarantee again and again the petitioner moved this Court in the above writ petition which was disposed of after hearing the Govt. Counsel on 11.7.1995. The operating part of the Order runs as fallows: In the above circumstances and position of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the parties by directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to finalise the final measurement and settlement of the claims of the measurement and settlement of the claims of the petitioner within one months next from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. If no settlement is arrived the petitioner shall be at liberty to get back the bank guarantee money being released from the Department. In the meantime the petitioner may not be pressurised for further renew of the bank guarantee.