PREM CHANDRA TRIPATHI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M.P. has been filed by the 9th Respondent (in the Writ Petition) seeking for extension of time till December, 2014 to enable it to successfully complete the work of construction of NH75 in KM Number 182 to 259.725 awarded to the 9th Respondent under the LWE-JH-2009-10-102 Scheme. The Public Interest Litigation being W.P. (PIL) No. 6626 of 2011 was preferred for a direction to enquire into the construction of NH-75 in KM Number, 182 to 259.725 which has been awarded to the 9th Respondent. The Public Interest Litigation was disposed of vide order 24.1.2014 directing the 9th Respondent to complete the work by 31.3.2014 and further directing the 9th Respondent to file completion report before this Court. The direction in the Writ Petition to complete the work by 31.3.2014 was based on the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the 9th Respondent and also on the submissions of Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Contractor-9th Respondent (M/s. Patil Construction Ltd.). Now, this application has been filed seeking extension of time till December, 2014 for completion of the work of construction of the above said road in the above said stretch. In the supporting affidavit as well as in the supplementary affidavit filed along with the C.M.P., it is stated that the Contractor is well-equipped with man and machinery to execute the work however, due to law and order problems and also due to non-availability of raw materials and in view of ultras/naxal activities, the contractor could not complete the work within the stipulated time. It is further stated that the mining lease has been granted to the Contractor for supply of stone chips however, the Forest Department initiated a case being Forest Case No. 7 of 2013 and also the forest officials seized the huge quantity of stone chips and the Crusher unit of the Contractor. In the supporting affidavit, it is further stated that as against the order of confiscation passed in Confiscation Case No. 97 of 2013, the Contractor has moved in Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Garhwa and the appellate authority vide an order dated 10.1.2014 has directed for release of the seized items. It is further stated that as against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Garhwa, the Forest Department has preferred a revision being Revision Petition No. 22 of 2014 before the Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of India and the same is pending adjudication. According to the applicant (Respondent No. 9), it is only because of the non-availability of the raw materials, the Contractor could not complete the work and the same has also been referred to in the letter of the Chief Engineer in Memo No. 479 dated 11.4.2014 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, requesting the authority to intervene into the matter and directing for the release of the seized items including the Crusher.

(2.) Drawing out attention to the averments in the affidavit and also in the supplementary affidavit, Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the applicant (Respondent No. 9) submitted that the contractor even though having the abundant material to complete the work, it is only because of the non-availability of the raw materials, the Contractor could not complete the work within the time stipulated. It is further submitted that in respect of other Contractors like M/s. Nandlal Pandey vide an Agreement No. 4F2-2008-09, the said Contractor has not completed the work even after six years and while so, the State Authority cannot adopt differential and preferential treatment with respect to various contractors on the same road and therefore, the learned counsel for the 9th respondent prays for extension of time till December, 2014.

(3.) The State respondent has filed a detailed counter-affidavit stating that progress as on 31.1.2014 is only 45.90% while the same was 42% on 8.6.2013 which indicates an increase of mere 3.90% over a period of 9 months. According to the respondents, till date as on 21.4.2014, only 46.40% of the total work has been completed. The counter-affidavit refers to the slow pace of the work executed by the 9th respondent (M/s. Patil Construction Ltd.).