SADIQUE AHMAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by impugned order dated 12.08.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 152 of 2013, by which the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the prayer seeking a direction to release a sum of Rs. 4,98,784/ arose from a contract and therefore, the dispute can be resolved only by filing a civil suit, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, in response to a tender floated by respondent nos. 2 4 for miscellaneous service of maintenance in Shyamali township and MECON head office at Ranchi for removal of refuse from house to house and garbage disposal by truck in three Schedules namely, ScheduleA, ScheduleB and ScheduleC, the appellant submitted his bid and vide work order dated 30.07.2007 the work was allotted to the appellant for two years w.e.f. 01.08.2007. Clause8 of the tender document provides extension of contract with mutual consent of the parties and accordingly, in view of satisfactory performance of the appellant, the respondents vide letter dated 30.07.2009 extended the period of contract for one more year beyond 31.07.2009. Though the appellant has been paid for work under ScheduleA and ScheduleC items, the respondents did not pay for the work under ScheduleB item. Although, the respondents themselves took a decision on 30.06.2010 to make payment in respect of ScheduleB item of work for 500 trips in a year @ Rs 352/ per truck of 200 CFT, no payment was made to the appellant and therefore, the appellant submitted representation to the respondents and lastly approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 152 of 2013 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 12.08.2013.

(3.) The respondent nos. 2 4 have filed counteraffidavit stating that the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions of the tender and the appellant violated conditions contained under Clause 4 to 9 and Clause 16 in respect of ScheduleB work. It is stated that the appellant never maintained the register for the dailywork done, neither maintained a separate register for the number of truck trips which was required to be checked/certified by the authorised representative of the respondents. It is further submitted that permission from local municipal authorities for disposal/dumping of the refuse and debris at specified dumping ground was never produced by the appellant and even at the time of filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal the appellant has not submitted the bill for the work done.