RANJEET CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE terminating the agreement vide order dated 20 -6 -2012, the respondent had put the petitioner -company in black -list vide order dated 4 -5 -2012 however, the said order was not challenged in the writ petition and therefore, I.A. No. 3790 of 2014 has been filed.

(2.) MR . Rajeev Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the affidavit dated 18 -3 -2015 filed in the present proceeding it appears that, the respondent -State of Jharkhand has admitted that the area in which the work was to be executed was infested with Maoist activities. The scheduled completion period was extended till March, 2012 however, before that, vide letter dated 27 -12 -2011, the Executive Engineer informed the petitioner -company that final measurement would be taken on 6 -1 -2012. It is further submitted that without terminating the contract, an order of debarment/black -listing was issued on 4 -5 -2012 and e -Procurement notice was issued on 8 -6 -2012. In these facts, it is submitted that the narration of events which took place after execution of agreement dated 14 -8 -2010 unerringly indicate mala fide intention of the respondent which has culminated in termination of agreement on 20 -6 -2012. Challenging termination of agreement arbitrary, it is further submitted that the facts disclosed in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent -State of Jharkhand indicate that the respondents resorted to actions which were unwarranted and uncalled for. Instead of terminating the contract, the respondents should have allowed further time to the petitioner -company for completing the work however, in the supplementary counter -affidavit dated 18 -3 -2015, a plea has been taken by the respondent -State of Jharkhand that in view of the scheme which was sanctioned on 5 -9 -2013, the work in question cannot be executed in its original form in which agreement dated 14 -8 -2010 was executed.

(3.) FROM the materials brought on record, it appears that the petitioner -company has raised a dispute that in absence of supply of bitumen, Maoist activities etc., the work under the agreement dated 14 -8 -2010 could not be completed within the scheduled completion period. The respondent -State of Jharkhand has taken a plea that sufficient time including, extension of time was granted to the petitioner -company however, the petitioner -company failed to execute the work and therefore, the agreement dated 14 -8 -2010 was terminated. The plea taken by the petitioner that the termination of agreement vide order dated 20 -6 -2012 is arbitrary and illegal, is a question of fact which has to be established by the petitioner -company by leading evidence and thus, in the present proceeding, the plea taken by the petitioner -company cannot be adjudicated. Accordingly, challenge to termination of agreement on 20 -6 -2012 fails on the ground that it involves disputed questions of fact. In the supplementary counter -affidavit dated 18 -3 -2015, the respondent -State of Jharkhand has stated that the petitioner -company would not be affected by order contained in letter dated 4 -5 -2012 however, I find that the name of petitioner -company appears at Sl. No. 15 in the list appended to letter dated 4 -5 -2012. It further appears that before issuing the order of debarment/blacklisting, no show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Considering the statement made in the supplementary counter -affidavit dated 18 -3 -2015 and the fact that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner, the order of debarment/blacklisting is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. In view of the fact that earlier e -Procurement tender notice has not been given effect to, challenge to the same by the petitioner -company has been rendered infructuous. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner -company is granted a liberty to approach the Civil Court challenging termination of agreement vide order dated 20 -6 -2012. Since this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the plea taken by the petitioner -company in so far as, termination of agreement dated 20 -6 -2012 is concerned, dismissal of the writ petition would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner -company. All the pleas which have been raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding and which may be available to the petitioner in law, are open to the petitioner. It is made clear that before any further action is proposed against the petitioner -company by the respondent -State of Jharkhand, a prior notice would be given to the petitioner -company. The writ petition stands disposed of, in the above terms. Consequently, I.A. No. 7400 of 2013 also stands disposed of.