STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. MEINHARDT SINGAPORE PVT.LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellants- State is aggrieved against the order dated 27.7.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 137 of 2011 by which the writ petition of the respondents was allowed and the order for black listing the writ petitioner dated 20.12.22010 has been quashed. The brief facts of the case are that writ petitioner was the successful bidder and, therefore, it was awarded the work of contract for consultancy services and construction, supervision for development of the State of Arts Mega Sports Complex at Hotwar, Ranchi. Under the contract the total consideration amount was Rs. 10,30,00,000/-, which was to be paid in phased manner. The date of commencement of work was 4.12.2004 and the date of completion of the work was up to 31.12.2006. Admittedly, the petitioners could not complete the work in time however, petitioners plea was that in fact material changes have been made in he work awarded to the writ petitioners and they gave certain examples that total value of the work was earlier fixed was Rs. 206 Crores for the two works; (a) planning and designing of drawing i.e. bid process management and (b) project management supervision of the construction work. Originally the Administrative Block building was to be constructed in an area of 25,000/- square feet but the total area of the Administrative Block was increased to 1,25,000 square feet and thereafter, a number of additions like shopping complex, construction of Amphitheater, jogging track were made which escalated the cost of the project and the value of the work was increased from Rs. 206,00 Crores to Rs. 356,00 Crore and then again increased to Rs. 423 Crore and finally to Rs. 506 Crore. In spite of all these alterations and increase m the work, according to the petitioner they completed certain works by 3rd April, 2006, which was duly certified by the Executive Engineer, Special Works Department by giving a certificate on 3rd April, 2006. The petitioners' contention is that because of that reason the work was delayed. Not only this, the work was delayed because of that reason, but in fact the delay was caused due to other contractors, who were to execute the work and the petitioners' work was only for consultancy, who could have advised the contractors to do the work. Instead of taking action against the such defaulter contractors by terminating their contract and black listing them, the Respondents black listed the writ petitioners. It h submitted by the writ petitioner that the original cost of work of Rs. 356 Crores ultimately increased to Rs. 506.00 Crores and petitioners continued with the work to the maximum extent to which they could have done. The petitioners work contract expired on 30th November, 2007 and thereafter, the petitioners' terms of contract was not extended inspite of petitioners request in writing. In these facts and circumstances and specifically in view of the end of the term of the contract, petitioners could not have continued with the work and unnecessary allegation has been leveled against the petitioners that without completing the work they left the place and virtually ran away. The writ petitioners thereafter, submitted that petitioners bills were not paid inspite of demands and even without getting the payments of the bills, petitioners continued the work beyond the contract period and up to 4.2.2008. In these facts and circumstances, there was no justification for blacklisting the petitioners.

(2.) It appears that the State in counter placed on record several letters, copies of which are placed before us also to indicate that several letters reminders and warnings were given to the writ petitioners to complete the process expeditiously, as the project was of State's importance as Mega Sports Complex was to be constructed so that mega event of national sports could have been held in Ranchi

(3.) Learned counsel for the State vehemently submitted that petitioners did not request for extension of time at any time, however he requested for payment, but according to the State, payment which, was due has already been paid to the writ petitioners up to the extent of 65% of the total payment which was only the cost of the service given by the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the State- Appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge committed serious errors of fact and law ant proceeded under some assumption that the petitioners were blacklisted on the recommendation of the committee constituted by the Vidhan Sabha and that too without giving any notice or show cause, whereas the petitioner was duly served with the show cause notice by the competent authority who passed the impugned order and the respondent also submitted the reply to the notice. Learned Single Judge also proceeded to decide the matter by accepting the plea of the writ petitioners that the other contractors were not blacklisted or no action was taken against other contractors, which cannot be a ground in a case where serious fault on the part of the petitioners was found from the trustworthy documents which cannot be denied by the petitioners that they were given several letters, reminders and warning for doing the work expeditiously and admittedly the petitioner not also abandoned the work but in fact ran away leaving the important work incomplete.