No. 30A/SA/1779, dated 8-8-1969.While scrutinizing the cases of time extension instances Have come into notice where recommendations of the forwarding officers are not convincing, and one is apt to conclude that hindrances advanced or the period thereof are incorrect and incoherent with the facts of the case. Varied reasons are put forwarded in support of the applied extension e.g. death of some close relation of the contractor, out break of epidemics, non- acquisition of land, late layouts by the department, meagre arrangements on the part of the department for dewatering etc. subsequent changes in design, incorporation of specifications other than mentioned in agreements, unexpected cloud bursts, execution of extra/additional items so on and so forth. No up to date record is maintained at any level whether any of the above reasons are registered from the very outest of the work with the duration pertaining to each hindrance. When the contractor applies for extension at the end of the work he mentions several hindrances in support of his application and the departmental officers have mostly to take their memory to recollect as to what the actual facts were. This results in subsequent querries and counter-querries and the case, which is received in this office (or subordinate office in case the time extension falls within their competence), paints a very unrealistic and illegal picture of the actual hindrances on the site. To put an example, in one case the contracted represented.
