M/S. RUNGTA ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application has been filed seeking writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the office order, contained in Memo No.3091 dated 08.11.2012, issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer, Road Division, Bhagalpur (Annexure 5), whereby and where under the petitioner's request for withdrawing the security deposit has been declined on the ground that an exemplary costs of Rs12.90 lacs has been imposed on him for slow completion of allotted works of widening and strengthening of Trimohan-Ekchari-Dhanoura-Mahagama Road in KM 0 to 20.20 and other P.C.C. works for the year 2006-07. The petitioner, by means of I.A. No. 8930 of 2016, has further sought for quashing of the orders dated 06.07.2007 (Annexure A to the 2nd supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.4), 21.05.2007 and 13.06.2007 (Annexure B series to the 2nd supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.4), passed by the then Executive Engineer, Road Division, RCD, Bhagalpur, where under for slow completion of works, the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 12.90 lacs as penalty, though the said orders were never communicated to him earlier. Thus, the petitioner seeks a writ/mandamus for refund of the security amount, which is sought to be adjusted by the respondents against the imposed penalty.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 14.03.2007, the petitioner-a Construction Company, after following the due procedure, was awarded the contract and accordingly an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Executive Engineer, R.C.C. Road Division, Bhagalpur. On 09.12.2007, the respondent-Executive Engineer visited the site and directed the petitioner-Company to stop work for using 200 mm WMM works in place of 150 mm and accordingly, made entry in the site work book. As such, on 26.12.2008, the Chief Engineer on the basis of the entries made in the site work books, a supplementary agreement was executed in addition to Agreement No.3(P)F2/2006-07 dated 14.03.2007. In view of the fresh agreement entered into between the parties, the petitioner applied for extension of time as the work could not be completed in time due to change in the nature of the work, which was duly granted to him.

(3.) It is submitted by the petitioner that the works were completed within the extended period of completion of work, which was approved by the respondent-authorities and accordingly payment has been made to the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per the supplementary agreement entered into between the parties, there was a provision of Defect Liability Period (hereinafter referred to as 'DLP') of three years after completion of works and the petitioner has also fulfilled the criteria and from time to time maintained the constructed roads after completion of the works undertaken by him.