MOHD. AMIN SEH Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the official respondents to issue formal allotment order of revised plan of the Cafeteria and to make payment in his favour for the work done by him, on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Executive Engineer, Verinag Development Authority, respondent no.3 herein, vide NIT No.EE/VDA/08 dated 04.12.2007 invited tenders from the registered contractors for construction of a Cafeteria at Verinag. The approximate cost of the construction was shown as Rs.36.55 lacs. Petitioner along with others applied. Thereafter comparative statement was prepared by the respondents and the petitioner was found to have quoted the lowest rates amongst the competing contractors. Respondent no.3 invited him for negotiation and it was agreed that the work will be executed by the petitioner at the cost of Rs.50 lacs or on the rates quoted by him. However, the allotment order was delayed but, keeping in view the urgency involved, he was asked to start the work. The petitioner, accordingly, started the work as per the direction of respondents 2 & 3 and their subordinate officers. However, the then Secretary to Government, Tourism & Culture Department and MLA of Dooru Assembly Constituency disapproved the designs and specifications given in the tender notice and desired distinctive architectural look of Cafeteria which would blend with the Mughal Architecture in view of the fact that the said sight was closed to the Veri Naag Spring, which is known as a master piece of Mughal Architecture. Accordingly, it was decided to revise the plan and design the Cafeteria in the same manner. The job of drawings and specifications was entrusted to the Consultant working under the name and style of M/s. Creations, Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar, a reputed Architect. The said Consultant after having discussed with the officers revised the drawings (annexure 'C' to the writ petition). Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to execute the work. He completed the work except interior ornamental works. The petitioner made so many representations (annexure D, D1, D2 & D3), but without any result. Thereafter, respondent no.3 made communication to the Secretary to Government, Tourism & Culture Department in response to one of the representations of the petitioner. The said communication is dated 03.09.2009, which contains details of the original plan and also the revised plan. It also contains details of the work which the petitioner had executed. Petitioner has also claimed cost of the carriage incurred while transporting the material from the place of origin to the place of destination and also the cost of brick tiles and carriage charges from Kathua to Veri Naag in terms of the revised plan and designs.

(3.) Writ petition was admitted on 13.09.2011. Respondents have filed the counter. It has been admitted by them that the petitioner offered lowest rates amongst the competing contractors. Thereafter, he was called for negotiation of rates and the work was allotted to him at the cost of Rs.38,28,422/-. They while admitting that minor changes were made in the designs contended that the same did not affect the construction of petitioner. They, however, contended that the agreement contained the alteration clause; therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.