PRADIP KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AC to GP-10.

(2.) This petition has been filed for setting aside the award dtd. 17/12/2013 passed by Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal in Reference Case No. 49 of 2012 by which and whereunder the learned Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that petitioner is not entitled to the revised estimate and final payment based on the bill of quantity is not liable to be modified or enhanced as per revised rate in technical sanction.

(3.) Petitioner happens to be a registered contractor and the Road Construction Department got published an advertisement inviting tender for construction of Dhansoi-Dinara Road and for which the estimated cost in the aforesaid advertisement was shown as Rs.4,85,87,655.00 The petitioner gave his proposal for the aforesaid work and ultimately, the petitioner got the aforesaid work from the concerned department. However, it is said that petitioner gave a written petition to Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Buxar mentioning therein that he was ready to do the work at the rate 4% above of the bill of quantity. The concerned department and petitioner entered into an agreement on 20/4/2009 which is evident from perusal of Annexure-1 to the petition. The aforesaid agreement contains a condition that revised estimate shall be part of the aforesaid agreement. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that prior to allotment of work to the petitioner, another Company was doing the aforesaid work but the aforesaid Company was denuded from the aforesaid work as the work of the said Company was not found satisfactory. It is an admitted position that due to delay in the aforesaid project, the estimate of the aforesaid work was increased and a revised estimate of Rs.5,43,43,824.00 was prepared. However, it is an admitted position that prior to execution of the agreement, the work order to the petitioner had already been given on 28/2/2009 and he started doing his work. No doubt, due to some delay in the aforesaid work, fine was imposed upon the petitioner but anyhow, he completed his work and requested for his payment but the concerned department cleared the bill at the original rate i.e. Rs.5,05,31,161.00 as mentioned in the agreement. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the concerned department made representation before the competent authority but no order was passed on the representation of the petitioner and thereafter, petitioner knocked the door of the Tribunal. The Tribunal having heard the parties passed the impugned award holding that sanction of estimate shall not be construed as sanction of rate and the petitioner raised his claim for revised rate after 33 months of starting of work.