Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Chander Gupta vs Union Territory Of J&K Through on 20 October, 2023
Sr. No. 161
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No.2674/2023
CM No. 6330/2023
Chander Gupta, Age 73 years ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
S/O Sain Dass Gupta
R/O H. No.85, Sector No.3
Nanak Nagar, Jammu
Through :- Mr. Chetan Prabhakar, Advocate.
V/s
1. Union Territory of J&K through ....Respondent(s)
Principal Secretary to Government
Public Works Department, Jammu.
2. Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department (R&B),
Jammu.
3. Superintendent Engineer,
Public Works Department (R&B)
Reasi-Udhampur.
4. Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department (R&B),
Special Sub-Division,
Mahore, Reasi, Udhampur
Through :- Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG vice
Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
ORDER
20.10.2023
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, asserting therein that the respondents issued e-NIT No.26 of 2018-19 dated 25.01.2019, with regard to construction of '80 Mtr Span Foot Suspension Bridge' at Sugga to Hasote over nallah Ans in District Reasi under State sector; that he being successful bidder was allotted the said work for an amount of ₹167.20 lacs with a completion period of 18 months from date of allotment i.e. November 2020. 2 WP(C) No.2674/2023
2. It is alleged that at no point of time, funds were released for construction of the above said bridge and the petitioner was informed that he, as per the contract, has not applied for E.O.T. and also as the project is now approved under NABARD RIDF-XXVIII scheme, the allotment of the petitioner will have to be cancelled.
3. It has been apprehended by the petitioner that the respondents may cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioner for the construction of the aforestated work, as the work could not be started due to delay in finalizing the administrative approval, drawings and designs, the soil testing etc, and also for want of release of funds; that the petitioner, further, apprehended that the work may be re-notified by issuance of a fresh NIT and, as such, prayed that the respondents be directed not to cancel his allotment for the construction of the bridge in question.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, vehemently, argued that the petitioner has invested money to the tune of ₹29,71,000/- towards the soil testing, preparation and vetting of structural designs and drawings, mobilizing of key construction material and machinery, making approach road to the site etc. on the directions of the official respondents and the delay in approving the project by the official respondents and also due to the supervening effect of COVID-19, the work could not be completed within the stipulated time.
5. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG, who is incidentally present in the court, appearing vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG, submits that the petitioner has unnecessarily delayed the project of public importance due to his own defaults, 3 WP(C) No.2674/2023 he should not seek further latitude in the matter and the respondents be left free to go ahead in the matter in accordance with law.
6. Since the project even after finalizing of drawings and approval of the project by the official respondents was not taken up, in a remote area of Jammu division and the petitioner as a contractor has not bothered to go ahead with the work except that some material had been dumped at the site, which, as per the report of the local Executive Engineer, was also not even there now and, particularly, in the face of the fact that the project of construction of bridge, in question, is to be funded now by the NABARD, as such, there may be requirement of issuance of a fresh tender, by the respondents.
7. Moreover, the project is of public importance and was conceived in the year 2019, however, the contractor, on one pretext or the other, has not proceeded ahead in the matter with the construction of the work of the bridge and has claimed that he had spent around ₹30 lacs towards basics of the project. The respondents cannot be restrained from not raising fresh tenders due to lapses conducted by the petitioner and, particularly, in the face of the change of funding of the project by the NABARD. The petitioner can participate in the fresh NIT, if issued and he can also reserve his right of claiming the recovery of the amount, which he had incurred, as per the allotment and assurances of the respondents, for preparation of the soil testing, drawings or other ancillary works.
8. In the considered opinion of this court, the respondents cannot be restrained from dealing with the petitioner in the matter, with regard to non completion of the work within the stipulated period and also to issue fresh 4 WP(C) No.2674/2023 tenders for the project. However, they shall pass a speaking order to do so, justifying the reasons therefor, after affording an opportunity of being heard.
9. Viewed thus, the petition is dismissed, in limine, with the observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to participate if the fresh tenders are floated on cancellation of his earlier contract and also shall have a legal remedy of seeking recovery of the amount claimed to have been spent earlier. Besides he can explore the possibility to challenge the order, if any, passed with regard to cancellation of his allotment.
10. Dismissed along with connected application(s).
) (MA CHOWDHARY)
Jammu: JUDGE
20.10.2023
Raj Kumar