DEBASHREE CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior counsel along with Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner, Learned Government Advocate No. 9, for the State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned Central Government Counsel, for the Union of India.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the office order No. 22/2006 issued vide memo No. 639 dated 17.7.2006 by the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Aurangabad by which the contract awarded to the petitioner has been rescinded and the security money has been forfeited. Consequently, the petitioner also seeks a relief for a direction upon the respondents to allow it to complete the work subject to execution of supplementary agreement making provision for enhancement of the rate and also for metal work and further for a direction upon the respondents to make payments for the works executed by the petitioner fortnightly as per agreement.

(3.) IT is alleged by the petitioner that it had started work immediately thereafter but the Executive Engineer having a biased attitude towards the petitioner from very beginning on 25.2.2006 wrote to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is not executing the work as per the specification provided in the agreement. Similar letter was again given on 16.3.2006. The petitioner gave a detailed reply vide letter dated 6.4.2006 stating therein about the delayed supply of bitumen and that after receipt of the same it had started executing the work and by the end of March 2006, it had completed the work for a value of Rs. 40 lacs for which bill has been submitted but no payment, had been received. The petitioner also learnt that the sanction/approval period of the job has already expired as per the sanction letter issued by the Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India but it had been kept in dark about the same. The petitioner again reiterated the objections that it had made by its letter dated 12.1.2006 claiming enhancement of the amount of agreement. The said letter of the petitioner was replied by the Executive Engineer by letter dated 7.4.2006 in which the petitioner was informed that it had to complete 50% of the works by March, 2006 as per the terms of the agreement but it had completed the work only to the extent of 10% of the same and accordingly it was warned to complete the work according to the agreement otherwise necessary action would be taken against it in accordance with law. This was replied by the petitioner and a series of correspondences continued between the petitioner -company and the Executive Engineer in this regard. Ultimately, the petitioner was communicated that it was decided by letter dated 18.5.2006 (Annexure -13) of the Executive Engineer that the sanction of additional quantity and additional amount for the work in question is under consideration and as soon as the sanction is obtained, information would be given to the petitioner. This was also replied by the petitioner.