NAND LAL PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging order contained in letter dated 27.01.2014, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) In the writ petition it is stated that agreement No. 13 SBD/2008-09 for widening of Hazaribagh-Barkagaon-Tandwa Road between 37 K.M. to 47.05 K.M was executed. The work was to commence on 10.10.2008 and the schedule completion period was one year that is, 09.10.2009. Due to various reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the work could not be completed. During the intervening period there were Parliamentary Elections and election for Legislative Assembly. The area is infested with the Maoist activities due to which the work was tendered/re-tendered many times. The petitioner wrote letters to the respondents seeking extension of time for completing the work however, it was not granted. The bills remained pending with the respondents and the petitioner was not paid the amount against the running bills and thus, due to financial crunch the petitioner could not complete the work. Lastly, vide letters dated 02.05.2013 and 02.01.2014, the petitioner sought extension of time for completing the work and vide letter dated 03.09.2013 requested for executing the supplementary agreement however, it was not granted to the petitioner-Company. The stretch of Hazaribagh-Barkagaon-Tandwa Road between 37 K.M. to 47.05 K.M was under encroachment which was removed only on 15.06.2011.

(3.) It is submitted that, in these facts the impugned order contained in letter dated 27.01.2014 could not have been issued terminating the contract and forfeiting the earnest money deposited by the petitioner. It is submitted that the letters written to the respondents bringing to their notice the difficulties faced by the petitioner, have not been discussed and taken into account before issuing order in the letter dated 27.01.2014 and therefore, the impugned letter is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that though in letter dated 27.01.2014 it is stated that in the last two years, the progress has remained "nil", the information revealed through R.T.I would disclose that the petitioner has completed about 81.85% of the work and thus, the order has been passed on wrong factual premises.