Patna High Court - Orders
Shapoorji Pallonji And Company Private ... vs The State Of Bihar on 8 June, 2021
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10367 of 2021
======================================================
Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, A Company registered
under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered office at 70, Nagindas
Master Road, Fort Mumbai - 400023, Maharashtra, India, having its Regional
Office at PS Srijan Corporate Park, Tower 1-7th Floor, Plot G-2, Block - GP,
Sector -V, Salt Lake- Kolkata - 700091 and local office at 4th Floor, 402 Sita
Usha Square Apartment, Main Road, Patna - 800020 through its Manager,
Business Development Utpal Raj, Son of Raj Bindu Prasad age about 29
years, Male resident of Manoj Kumar Nata Tola, PS Kazi Mohammadpur,
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar, through Secretary Building Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer in Chief, Building Construction Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Executive Engineer, Construction Division No. 1, Building
Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mahendra Prasad Verma, AC to SC 20
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
2 08-06-2021The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. The matter has been taken up after being specially notified under orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
3. Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahendra Prasad Verma, learned AC to SC 20 for the State.
4. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:
"a. For issuance of writ in the nature Patna High Court CWJC No.10367 of 2021(2) dt.08-06-2021 2/4 of Certiorari quashing the order dated 01.04.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3 whereunder the petitioner company has been "Debared" for indefinite period (Annexure P/18) for alleged slow progress in work- ignoring the fact that the respondents have themselves failed to fulfil the reciprocal promise.
b. For holding that the holding that the Respondents having failed to fulfil their reciprocal obligation and are as such under obligation to fulfil their part of obligation and conditions under the contract as numerated in petitioner's letter dated 05.05.2020, 13.07.2020, 24.07.2020 and 15.02.2021- before the respondents can ask the petitioner to show commensurate progress in work.
c. For any other relief or reliefs which the petitioners may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case."
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the contract for building Cricket Stadium at Rajgir between the petitioner and the State Government could not be completed in time as the pandemic intervened and the situation became out of control for everybody and, thus, there was no deliberate or willful laches on the part of the petitioner for non-completion of the work in time, which was till October, 2020.
6. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted and also took the Court through various annexures to contend that at every stage, the petitioner was informing the authorities with regard to non-fulfillment of the obligation of the authorities like demarcation of the area, finalization of the Patna High Court CWJC No.10367 of 2021(2) dt.08-06-2021 3/4 building plans etc. It was further contended that even with regard to supply of materials, the prices having escalated beyond expectation coupled with the fact that movement of heavy vehicles for transportation having been restricted for quite some time, has resulted in a situation which was beyond any human control and accordingly, has also had an effect on the petitioner not being able to complete the project within the time frame.
7. At this stage, on a query of the Court with regard to the stand of the petitioner relating to the project, he took a categorical stand that the Company would complete the project latest within one year from today on priority basis and comply with all the technical aspects without compromising on the quality.
8. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned by which the Company has been debarred is more or less a blanket order without specifying any fixed period and most importantly, in the impugned order itself, the discussion with regard to consideration of the show cause indicates that there were no willful default on the part of the petitioner, since the request by the petitioner Company was under consideration by the State Government, which, on the one hand has conveniently Patna High Court CWJC No.10367 of 2021(2) dt.08-06-2021 4/4 not been finally decided, whereas on the other hand, the order of debarment has been passed, which cannot be sustained, both in the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the law settled.
9. Learned counsel for the State submitted that he may be granted four weeks' time to file detailed counter affidavit.
10. In view of the fact that the authorities would be required to file a detailed response in the matter, as prayed for by learned counsel for the State, the matter be listed on 8 th July, 2021, as the first item.
11. In the meantime, there shall be stay of the impugned order debarring the petitioner.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U