Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The IE in the present case is Sheladia Associates Inc. The disputes between the parties have arisen in the context of the grievance by the Petitioner that despite completing 88% of the project, it has not been issued by the IE a provisional completion certificate („PCC‟), which is a prerequisite to enable the Petitioner to collect toll on the project highway. The relevant provisions of the CA as regards the PCC reads as under:

14.3.1 The Independent Engineer may, at the request of the Concessionaire, issue a provisional certificate of completion substantially in the form set forth in Schedule J (the "Provisional Certificate") if the Tests are successful and the Project Highway can be safely and reliably placed in commercial operation though certain works or things forming part thereof are outstanding and not yet complete. In such an event, the Provisional Certificate shall have appended thereto a list of outstanding items signed jointly by the- Independent Engineer and the Concessionaire (the "Punch List"); provided that the Independent Engineer shall not withhold the Provisional Certificate for reason of any work remaining incomplete if the delay in completion thereof is attributable to the Authority.

14.3.2 The Parties hereto expressly agree that a Provisional Certificate under this Clause 14.3 may, upon request of the Concessionaire to this effect, be issued for operating part of the Project Highway, if at least 75% (seventy five per cent) of the total length of the Project Highway has been completed. Upon issue of such Provisional Certificate, the provisions of Article 15 shall apply to such completed part."

10. Article 14.4 talked of completion of punch list items which were to be completed by the Petitioner within 90 days of the date of issuance of the PCC. It was after the completion of all punch list items that the IE would issue the Completion Certificate [CC]. The other relevant clauses as far as issuance of the PCC is concerned, read as under:

20. During the course of hearing it was submitted by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that the IE has been insisting on the longitudinal median drains contrary to what the IRC Guidelines themselves require. She submitted on instructions that if this was included in the punch list items, the Petitioner was prepared to construct the drains within 90 days of the issuance of the PCC. However, she submitted that the Petitioner had a genuine apprehension that the IE which was from the empanelled consulting firms of the NHAI was not taking an independent view as was required under the CA. Therefore, an independent authority like the Central Road Research Institute („CRRI‟) should assess the work.

22. It must be mentioned that during the course of hearing further notes were exchanged between the parties on what work remained to be carried out. The Court at one stage suggested that NHAI could come up with a list of works which it considered essential to be completed even before the issuance of the PCC and those that could be included in the punch list items for the completion of which a period of three months would be available to the Petitioner after the issuance of the PCC. On 11th May 2015, NHAI had submitted a short note in respect of „critical NCRs to be closed out of total pending 16 NCRs for proposed PCC stretch‟. Even as regards the median work, this note mentions at least three median works which are required to be executed by the Petitioner before the issuance of the PCC.