DILIP KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ petition, petitioner has sought for number of reliefs as enumerated hereunder:--

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent being No. 07F/02/2002-2003 dated 23.3.2003 for construction of bridge over Sanjay river. According to the petitioner, the total cost of the project was Rs. 27,78,664/- to be executed within 1 year. However, due to recurrent naxal problem in the said area, agreement could not be executed in the time frame and petitioner was stopped from carrying out his activities because of interference and threat of the Naxalites in the said area. It is submitted that the petitioner requested to the respondent-authorities, in the circumstance, to close the agreement for execution of the work also enclosing the paper cutting in support that the area is infested with naxalites, as such it is difficult to do the work. However, Respondent-authorities, thereafter, without answering the grievances of the petitioner, issued the notice informing him that construction of the said bridge on Sanjay river near Udal Kocha on Sonua Gudari Road has been stopped and hence, under the agreement, he has failed to execute the work within the specified time frame. It is further submitted that the petitioner was served with letter dated 8.8.2006 informing him that the petitioner had failed to construct the bridge within stipulated 1 year period and the agreement of the petitioner is being cancelled and that action for forfeiting petitioner's security deposit is being taken. Subsequently, the impugned order dated 7.9.2006 has also been passed as contained in Annexure-9, whereby the agreement has been cancelled, his security deposit has been forfeited and at the same time petitioner is being blacklisted.

(3.) Respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that petitioner had not completed the work leading to the rescission of the agreement, as only 70% of the work has been completed. It is further stated that the petitioner was given notice and pursuant to clause 3(a) of the agreement, his contract was terminated and his earnest money has been forfeited. It is further submitted that Rs. 16,71,220/- has been paid to the petitioner.