HARIHAR SINGH PRIVATE LTD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has sought for quashing the letter dated 18.06.2007 whereby the contract for execution of residual earth work in connection with Chandil left main canal of specified description for total consideration amount of Rs. 58,06,188.50/ -, has been cancelled without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was given a number of notices as contained in Annexure -A series for starting execution of work as the work itself was to be completed within a period of six months. It is submitted that vide letter no. 317 dated 05.04.2007 (Annexure -A/2), the Executive Engineer concerned representation reminded the petitioner that he had not even started the work and was not taking interest in execution of agreement. By the said letter he was further directed to start the work at the earliest failing which he would be responsible for the delay. It is further submitted that by letter dated 14.05.2007 (Annexure A/4), the petitioner was informed once again that as per the agreement dated 19.02.2007, out of six months time specified to conclude the execution of work, three months time had already elapsed, but no progress of work has been noticed. It was also indicated that if works are not started then there would be difficulty because of impending rainy season. The Executive Engineer informed the petitioner to take steps within three days for execution of work failing which after 20.05.2007, final measurement would be taken and recommendation for termination of agreement would be made for which the petitioner would himself be liable. From perusal of Annexure -2, it appears that the petitioner received the said letter dated 14.05.2007 and responded. However, from perusal of the said letter, it appears that the petitioner once again raised issue of practical difficulties in the execution of work stating that he was not responsible for removal of water for the execution of work. In a sense, the petitioner failed to take steps for execution of work. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer passed the impugned order dated 18.05.2007 by which the agreement no. 4F2/2006 -07 has been terminated in terms of clause -3(a) of the said agreement.