OF LATE BASUDEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, 3RD SECRETARIAT, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS have filed counter affidavit and pleadings are complete, with consent of parties the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered contractor and inter alia undertakes large works of civil construction etc. including major canal repair works for the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. Petitioner had entered into agreement no. 5F2 of 1988 -89 for several cross - drainage work on the western Kosi main canal. The Engineer -in -charge for the purposes of implementation of the said agreement and the work thereunder was Executive Engineer, respondent no. 6. The total scope of the work was estimated at about Rs. 249 lacs and the petitioner had agreed to do the work of about 14.75% above meaning for about Rs. 285.72 lacs. The agreement was executed by respondent no. 6, the Executive Engineer on behalf of State. One unique condition was incorporated in the agreement (Annexure -1). It provided that if the work was completed in time the petitioner would be entitled to an additional amount as labour escalation cost keeping in view the enhancement in minimum wages as per Government notification. The work was to be completed within 16 months, excluding rainy season, which takes the date of completion to 6.2.1991. In terms of Clause 11 and the labour escalation cost Clause the Executive Engineer (respondent no. 6) was the competent authority to supervise the work, its implementation and the Superintending Engineer was the final authority to decide matters with regard to payment etc.

(3.) IMMEDIATELY on agreement being executed, petitioner started the work, which was basically of two parts. Substantial work was of cross -drainage and then there was construction of wing walls of special design. When petitioner started the work and started digging up for foundation laying and pilling for constructing wing wails, the Engineers found defect in the designs and petitioner was asked to stop work in respect of four wing walls, thus leaving the excavation done for foundation work incomplete. Designs were taken back for corrections and redesigning. These facts are not in dispute.