SUBODH KUMAR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order no. 148 dated 23.08.2016 passed by the Secretary Department of Rural Development (Rural Works Wing), Government of Jharkhand (respondent no. 2), whereby the representation of the petitioner for payment of the work done by him pursuant to Agreement No.61F2 of 2011-12 has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of the work done after rescinding the contract and refund the Security amount with interest at the prevailing market rate.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division Seraikella (respondent no. 5) issued notice inviting tender (NIT) for construction of 50 beded Hostel in Muriya Madarsa School under Gamaharia Block in the District of Seraikella-Kharsawan and pursuant to the said NIT the petitioner submitted his tender. The petitioner being the lowest bidder was allotted the work. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 on 14.02.2012 vide Agreement No. 61 F2 of 2011-12. The petitioner deposited the earnest money as per the terms of the agreement. The work order was issued vide memo no. 257 dated 14.02.2012 and as per the said work order, the work was to be completed by 13.02.2013. The District Welfare Officer, Seraikella vide his letter no. 221 dated 14.03.2012 requested the respondent no. 5 to stop the work as he received objections from the villagers and as such the work was stopped. The respondent no. 5 vide letter as contained in memo no. 971 dated 05.07.2012 requested the District Welfare Officer, Seraikella to take necessary decision regarding the stoppage of construction work and thereafter vide letter no. 739 dated 07.09.2012, the District Welfare Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan allowed to resume the work. The work was thus restarted on 05.10.2012, however the villagers put lock in the godown of the petitioner and took away the construction materials from the site. The petitioner requested the S.D.M, Seraikella vide his letter dated 05.10.2012 for providing security at the construction site i.e. the hostel, however nothing was done and the work could not be started. The petitioner vide letter dated 06.10.2012 informed the respondent no. 5 about the said situation. The petitioner has contended that neither the SDM, Seraikella nor the respondent no. 5 took any action on the application of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dated 09.07.2013 requested the respondent no. 5 to make payment of Rs. 11,01,721.00 for the work already done by him with a further request to refund the earnest money on terminating the agreement. Similar request was made to the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 5 vide letter no. 1487 dated 20.09.2013 however directed the petitioner to restart the work also informing him that some of the works done by him are of no use and if the said work is re-allotted to some other agency, the same will have been done after demolishing the structure/construction made by the petitioner and the cost to be incurred in demolishing the same would be recovered from the earnest money deposited by him. The petitioner thereafter sent a legal notice to the respondent nos. 2 to 5 on 01.10.2013. The petitioner also filed a writ petition being W.P.(C)No. 6689 of 2013, which was disposed of by this Court on 19.08.2015 directing the petitioner to file representation before the respondent no. 2, who, in turn, was directed to dispose of the same within two months. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation before the respondent no. 2, but the order was not complied within the stipulated time and thus a contempt petition being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 757 of 2015 was filed. The respondents filed show cause stating inter alia that the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order no. 148 dated 23.08.2016. Accordingly, the contempt petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order no. 148 dated 23.08.2016 and thus, the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the work could not be done due to latches on the part of the respondent authorities and as such the petitioner is entitled to get the amount for the work already done by him and he is also entitled to get refund of earnest money. It is further submitted that initially, the work was stopped by the District Welfare Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan and after resuming of the work, the same was again stopped on 05.10.2012 due to hurdle created by the villagers. The information to that effect was given to the authorities but no action was taken by them in this regard. It is further submitted that after the lapse of about a year, the respondents insisted to restart the work on the old rate, which was not possible as cost of materials had gone high. Therefore, the petitioner requested the authorities to revise the rate, but there was no response and hence the petitioner requested for rescinding the contract. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent authorities is highly arbitrary and malafide as the work could not be completed within the stipulated time due to inaction on the part of the respondent authorities. It is also submitted that the work done by the petitioner is as per map approved by the authority concerned, that too, under the supervision of Engineer-in-Charge. The impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the said order. The respondent no. 2 has wrongly observed in the impugned order that the petitioner did not lodge any FIR against the alleged theft from the construction site as the District Welfare Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan had directed the petitioner to make a complaint before the SDM, Seraikella against any hurdle in execution of the work.