Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner's specific case is that the respondent had not provided sufficient frontage for the execution of the work related to SCW piping and it delayed in payment of RA bills and these two issues were the main cause for the delay in the entire project. It is further contended that from March 25, 2020 nationwide lockdown was announced by the Government of India and had to be followed in a strict measure due to the spread of pandemic with Covid-

19. Due to a strict lockdown of transportation, accessibility to materials, availability of manpower and staff faced at site; all works at site had to be stopped which naturally caused delay in the project for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

It is urged that the Work had been suspended since March 23 2020 on account of the Covid-19 Lockdown and was to re-commence after the lockdown was over. As such the respondent be estopped from taking coercive action by withdrawing any area of work or issuing a new tender before the timeline suggested in the said letter takes effect. Annexure I of the said letter contemplates the completion of the work in different stages (some within 15 days of the lifting of the lockdown, some within 6 months thereafter and some 8 months as reflected page 99 to 101of Annexure 1 of the said letter). Moreover, the said letter states that BHEL will finalize a post lockdown timeline within 15 days of the lifting of the lockdown and yet, the very next day BHEL issued a new tender for the balance work.

It is alleged that the work started late and was delayed from time to time due to acts and omissions of the Respondent and that the Respondent had withheld payments and obstructed the workings of the Petitioner.

Petitioner further contended that issuance of a new tender is unjustified since even the original time stipulated under the tender given to the petitioner is not over and in any event the respondent had agreed to extend the time after the lifting of the lockdown, as per its own letter. Petitioner states that the Lockdown is not over totally and it would reasonably take some more time before the workers can get back to work post-lockdown period.

Admittedly, the respondent allowed the petitioner further time to complete the work after the lockdown period as per the timeline given to the petitioner. Though the lockdown period was not over but it cannot be said that there is still uncertainty as to the workmen. The practical reality is that site where the project has to be completed is in Jharkhand and worker never migrated from that State. So, the petitioner cannot take a defensive plea to delay the project work assigned to it as per the timeline and as per the schedule which has got to be completed.