SOMNATH PATHAK Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking quashing of order dated 08.08.2013 terminating Agreement No. 2 S.B.D./2011-12 dated 04.07.2011 and for a direction upon the respondents to release all dues against the said agreement with statutory interest from the due date, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the Agreement No. 2 S.B.D./2011-12 was executed for re-construction of Pakur-Barharba road from 0.00 k.m. to 12 k.m. for a total contract value of approximately Rs. 12,01,76,020.00/-. The work was to commence from 04.07.2011 and it was to be completed by 03.10.2012 however, the site was not handed over in full to the contractor due to which the work under the agreement could not be completed and therefore, the petitioner made representations dated 30.10.2011 intimating the difficulties faced by the contractor in execution of work. By letter dated 01.12.2011, 10.12.2011, 13.12.2011, 04.01.2012, 09.01.2012 & 21.01.2013 the petitioner again wrote to the Executive Engineer and others indicating the difficulties faced by the contractor. Vide letter dated 17.04.2013 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why the agreement be not terminated. The petitioner submitted his reply on 30.06.2013 however, vide letter dated 08.08.2013 the Agreement No. 2 S.B.D./2011-12 has been terminated.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioner was directed vide letters dated 10.05.2012, 09.10.2012 & 17.12.2012 to complete the work under Agreement No. 2 S.B.D./2011-12 however, the contractor did not take interest to complete the work. Vide letter dated 27.12.2012, the Executive Engineer recommended that the Agreement No. 2 S.B.D./2011-12 should be terminated and therefore, in the light of the above facts a show-cause notice date 17.04.2013 was issued to the petitioner. On 01.08.2013 a Press notice was issued for taking final measurement under Agreement No. 2 S.B.D./2011-12 and the final measurement has been taken on due date. It is further submitted that there were enough stretches available to the contractor to continue the work however, the petitioner always tried to misguide the Department pretending that there is a land dispute. In fact only a small stretch of land was under dispute which would not have been prevented the petitioner from completing the entire work.