Jharkhand High Court
M/S Gautam Construction vs State Of Jharkhand on 20 January, 2021
Author: H.C. Mishra
Bench: H.C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3304 of 2015
M/s Gautam Construction, Ramgarh. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary,
Rural Works Department, Ranchi
3. Executive Engineer,
Rural Works Department, Ranchi .... .... Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
----------
For the Petitioner : M/s. Sidhartha Roy
For the Respondents : M/s. Apoorv Singh
-------
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
-------
09/ 20.01.2021. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent State.
2. The petitioner firm is aggrieved by letter dated 17.02.2014 issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Hazaribag, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, whereby, the work contract which had been allotted to the petitioner firm for construction of a road has been rescinded and recommendation has been made for blacklisting the petitioner firm.
3. The petitioner firm was allotted the work contract for construction of a road, for which an agreement was entered into on 17.10.2011, according to which the work was to be completed by 16.04.2013. As the work could not be completed by the petitioner firm within time, the contract was rescinded. It is the case of the petitioner that by the impugned letter, without giving any notice / opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm, the contract has been rescinded and the recommendation has been made for blacklisting the petitioner firm. However, the fact remains that for the proposed action of blacklisting the petitioner firm, further notice has been given to the petitioner firm, which has also been brought on record.
4. So far as the reason for not completing the work within time by the petitioner firm is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had completed 70% of the work and the remaining 30% work could not be done due to the circumstances beyond their control, which included the threats of the naxalites and there was also a -2- rivulet falling between the span of construction of the road, as also due to fact that the bitumen was required to be purchased from the Government company for which permit was to be given by the State Government, but the said permit was not given to them in spite of the requests made by the firm.
5. The fact however, remains that though this writ application has been filed in the year 2015 itself, but the agreement between the petitioner firm and the department has not been brought on record to show that there was any such condition in the contract that the bitumen had to be procured from the Government company only and that too, upon issuance of permit by the State Government. The other reasons explained for not completing the contract within time, are also not convincing, as those reasons existed prior to entering into the contract, and it was for the petitioner firm to have entered into the contract, taking those factors into consideration.
6. Be that as it may. The fact remains that though the work was to be completed by 16.04.2013, the same has not yet been completed. Learned counsel for the petitioner though, has submitted that the petitioner firm is still ready to complete the remaining work, but this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be looked into, in view of the fact that the work of construction of road, which was allegedly completed before the rescinding of the contract, cannot be said to be existing as it was, at the time of rescinding of the contract. For all practical purposes the entire road has to be constructed afresh, and the work done about 6-7 years ago shall be of no use by now. As such, the proposal that the petitioner firm is still ready to complete the remaining work, is absolutely impractical and unworkable. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be allowed to do only 30% of the work as the same would only be a futile exercise. Allowing any such action would be sheer wastage of the public money. For all practical purposes, the construction of the road has to be done afresh, by floating fresh tender.
7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice / opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner firm before rescinding the work contract, also appears to be not acceptable. By way of their counter affidavit, the respondent State has brought on record the letters issued to the petitioner firm complaining about the unsatisfactory work, as also slow progress of work, which the petitioner firm had not responded. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that when the project was left incomplete, press notice was given for the final measurement of the work done till date, -3- but in spite of that notice the petitioner did not appear for final measurement. The impugned letter dated 17.02.2014, whereby, the work contract had been rescinded also mentions that the petitioner firm was also given the opportunities to appear for signing the final bills, but they avoided those letters. In the backdrop of these facts, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice / opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner firm before rescinding the work contract, cannot be looked into.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that on an application given by the petitioner on 17.10.2014 for extension of time, there was a recommendation by the Principal Secretary, of the department, for extension of time, but no extension of time was given to the firm for completing the work. In my considered view, this recommendation is not going to cut any ice, in as much as, the said application itself was given eight months after the issuance of the impugned letter, whereby the contract of the petitioner had already been rescinded.
9. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ application, as admittedly the contract has been rescinded due to the fact that the petitioner firm themselves did not complete the work within the prescribed time and he also avoided the letters and press notices given by respondent authorities. The petitioner firm was also given opportunities to appear for signing the final bills, but the same were also avoided and the petitioner did not appear in spite of the notices. As such I do not find any illegality in rescinding the contract allotted to the petitioner.
10. So far as the action of blacklisting the petitioner firm is concerned, that action was only under contemplation, and notice for the said action has already been given to the petitioner, which the petitioner may reply and satisfy the concerned authorities taking the final decision.
11. There is no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
(H.C. Mishra, J.) D.S.