LAXMIPATI BALAJEE CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for quashing of the order of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Masaurhi whereby the respondents while initiating proceedings for recession of contract under Clause 52.2(a)(c)(e) and (h) of the Standard Bid Document has ordered for forfeiture of the security deposit and the earnest money while also holding an amount of Rs. 19,13,871/- recoverable from the petitioner and directing him to deposit the same. Alongside a recommendation has been made for black listing the petitioner. Although a copy of the order put to challenge is impugned at Annexure-8 but the same is incomplete and a complete copy thereof has been placed on record vide Annexure-G to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State which order bears Memo No. 1308 dated 9.12.2014.

(2.) Mr. Sanjay Singh learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the petitioner while the State is represented by learned State counsel.

(3.) Facts of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department entered into an agreement on 29.1.2013 for execution of work relatable to construction and maintenance of road i.e T09 to Chakjohara Road under the Prime Minister Gramin Sarak Yojana (hereinafter referred to as the 'PMGSY') under Pakage BR-26R-295. A copy of the agreement bearing SBD No. 43/12-13 is placed at Annexure-1 and the date of commencement of the work is mentioned as 4.2.2013 with its completion on 14.12.201 According to the petitioner, although under the agreement, the petitioner was required to commence the work with effect from February, 2013 but there was huge protest and obstruction from the local villagers and though the petitioner did commence his work as per the schedule but owing to the disturbances created by the local villagers, the work could not gather speed and it is only in December 2013 that the issue was resolved and accordingly the Assistant Engineer informed the petitioner vide letter dated 5.2.2014 that the road has been made encroachment free and that he should submit his revised action plan. These facts stands confirmed from the communication present at Annexure-2 and 2/A. According to the petitioner, an inspection report was submitted by the National Quality Management and in so far as the road in question is concerned which appears at Serial No. 8, the grading have been given as 'satisfactory', as manifest from Annexure-