ALI MOHAMMAD Vs. UT OF LADAKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following writs:

(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of this petition as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a construction company being run under the name of M/S. Himalayan Construction Company, Kargil and was allotted the work of 'Retrofitting/upgradation of water supply scheme Chani ground from RD O to 17960 meters' by the PHE Division Kargil pursuant to the tendering process initiated vide e-NIT No. E-tender-20 of PHE Division Kargil dtd. 18/9/2020. The said work included the construction of two numbers of collection chambers with estimated cost of Rs.65,99,980.00 and this cost included the cost of material, but excluded the cost of pipes and fittings which, as per the petitioner, were to be supplied by the respondent-Department. It is submitted that pursuant to the allotment of work in question, the petitioner changed his position to his detriment and executed the work strictly as per the terms and conditions of the contract. The work, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, was to be completed within 60 days from the date of allotment and the execution of the agreement. The petitioner claims that he started the execution of the work by immediately mobilizing men and machinery and was successful in completing almost 10 kilometers of trench cutting.

(3.) It is the grievance of the petitioner that as per the NIT and the allotment order, the pipes of different dimensions were required to be supplied by the respondent-Department, but unfortunately the Department failed to supply pipes of 50mm/40mm/32mm. It is submitted that it is because of the failure on the part of the respondent-Department to supply the pipes of requisite dimensions, two collection chambers remained open, as a result whereof, the inhabitants of the area raised hue and cry as these opened chambers were posing serious threat to the lives of the inhabitants and live stock. It is further submitted that due to the persistent demand of the inhabitants of the area, the petitioner was harassed by the Department and was forced to fill up the collection chambers for which the petitioner had dug out the trenches etc. It is the further case of the petitioner that he could not complete the work in time because of the failure of the Department to supply the pipes and fittings of required dimensions. In nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner is that there has been a breach of various terms and conditions of the contract by the respondent-Department. The petitioner claims that the work, which was required to be completed by him within a period of 60 days, could not be so completed because of non supply of HDP pipes/fittings.