DHANANJAY CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the company of contractors of railway and other departments of Government.

(2.) RAILWAY issued a tender notice inviting open tender for construction and strengthening of minor bridges with widening of embankment from Dauram to Madhepura in connection with gauge conversion work of Saharsa -Purnia section. Petitioner responded and submitted his tender paper on or about 14.9.2005. The petitioner was then informed by letter dated 29.12.2005 that the petitioner 'stender was accepted and he was given 15 months time to complete the work and he should sign an agreement in that regard. The work was basically in two parts that of earth work of construction and strengthening of minor bridges as it was required for converting the meter gauge line into broad gauge line. Petitioner started work and several letters including letters dated 24.3.2006, 5.7.2006 and 27.9.2006 are on records with regard to petitioner 'sdemanding approved map of the minor bridges so that he could proceed with the work. They were not responded to. In time petitioner completed the earth work and sought payment thereof. The bridge work yet to begin because approved maps/plans were not being supplied but time was running out as the contract period was to end on 29.3.2007. As plans were still to be made available and the period was virtually at end, suddenly, the petitioner was informed by letter dated 27.3.2007 (Annexure -E to the counter affidavit) that most of plans were standard plans which petitioner could have obtained. At this stage, I may say that this letter conceals more than disclose. It makes no admission that several bridge plans are yet to be approved and handed over it does not refer. Even in the past petitioner was told in response to his request that plans were available. This letter only reaffirmed what petitioner has consistently maintained that the plans were never supplied during the period of the contract. Then it seems that the petitioner was advised to make an application for extension of time. Petitioner made such an application wherein he has clearly stated that he was seeking extension of time because the plans were not made available and it was on account of administrative lapses of the railway that the work could not be completed. He sought an extension of almost one year three months i.e. the contract was to end 28.3.2007 and he sought an extension up to 30.6.2008. The matter was placed before the railway, authority, who in clear term endorsed and allowed extension on administrative ground referable to clause 17(A)(iii) of General Conditions of Contract. Here I may refer to the said Clause 17(A)(iii) of the General Conditions of Contract. This refers to extension being granted because of default on the part of the railway administration, which leads to non - completion of work within the stipulated period. AH these are to be found in Annexure -F to the counter affidavit but a reference to the same would also show that though the recommendation was originally made or granting extension up to 30.6.2008. this has scored and substituted by 2007. The effect is that as against extension of one year three months, as sought for by the petitioner, extension was granted of only three months and that too even till then without making plans for the bridges. Naturally, the petitioner had sought for price revision as well, as the contract period was over and the petitioner was being extended because of railway administration defaults. Considering the period of extension, the work could not be completed in any manner and has resulted in cancellation of the contract and subsequent re -tendered pursuant to a fresh tender at the risk and cost of the petitioner alongwith forfeiture of security.

(3.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the said cancellation and re -tendering at the risk and cost of the petitioner.