IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 543 of 2008
Drupad Construction Pvt. Ltd Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, JC to AG
---
4. 07.07.2009
Heard JC to Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and JC to
AG for the respondent State.
2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the letter
no. 583 dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure-5) issued by the respondent Executive
Engineer, Building Division, Godda by which, the Agreement No. 27 F 2/05-06
entered into between the petitioner and the respondent authorities has been
cancelled. A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to allow the
petitioner to complete the work in pursuance of the aforesaid Agreement on the
ground, that the petitioner has already executed the part of the work order.
3. From the facts submitted, it appears that the Building Construction
Department of the State Government had invited a tender for construction of a
hundred bed Sadar Hospital at Godda for Health Department, including the work
of water supply and electrification of the hospital.
The petitioner submitted his tender which was accepted and the work
pertaining to the estimated cost of Rs. 2,55,62,304/- was allotted to him. The
Agreement referred to above was thereafter executed by and between the
petitioner and the representative of the respondent Building Construction
Department. It further appears that pursuant to the allotment of the work order,
the petitioner had initiated miscellaneous work namely construction of the
boundary wall. However, no further progress beyond the construction of the
boundary wall could be made on account of the fact that the lay out plan along
with the building map for construction of the hospital building, could not be made
available to the petitioner by the Building Construction Department. The
petitioner filed a writ application before this court vide W.P.(C) No. 3100 of 2007
praying for a direction to the respondents to supply the requisite maps and also to
revise the rates in respect of the work allotted to him. The writ was disposed of on
the assurance of the counsel for the respondent State that lay out plan would be
furnished as expeditiously as possible.
4. It appears from the averments made in the counter-affidavit of the
respondents, that subsequently, the scheme under which the hundred bed hospital
was to be constructed, was itself withdrawn by the State Health Department and
the funds allocated for the construction of the earlier proposed hundred bed
hospital, was also recalled by the Health Department. Consequently, the
impugned notice was issued by the respondent authorities of the Building
Construction Department, intimating the petitioner that the scheme under which
the work was allotted to him, having been recalled, construction cannot be
pursued any further. It also appears from the counter-affidavit of the respondents
that payment towards the work which was already executed by the petitioner was
duly made to him.
5. From the above facts and circumstances, it appears that the purpose of the
contract itself executed by and between the parties, was frustrated on account of
withdrawal of the scheme by the concerned agency namely, the Health
Department of the State Government and under such circumstances, the
respondent Building Construction Department cannot possibly be directed to
allow the petitioner to execute and complete the contract which appears to have
been rescinded on account of frustration of the contract, occasioned beyond the
volition of the Respondent. In the light of the above facts, the relief claimed by
the petitioner in this writ application, cannot be entertained and allowed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the raw materials which
was stacked by the petitioner at the construction site, have not been returned to
the petitioner as yet by the respondents and neither has the corresponding value of
such raw materials been paid to him till date and furthermore, the petitioner has
also not been paid the full amount for the works already executed.
7. Though, counsel for the respondents would assure that whatever payment
due to the petitioner, was released and paid to him, yet if the petitioner continues
to have any further grievance on account of non-payment of his dues, then he
may, within 15 days from the date of this order, file a fresh representation raising
his claim, stating his grounds in support of his claim and, within two months from
the date of receipt of the representation, the concerned authorities of the
respondents shall take a proper decision on the same by passing a reasoned and
speaking order and shall effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner.
If the petitioner’s claim for any further amount is found genuine, then within one
month from the date of decision on the petitioner’s representation, the amount
assessed, shall be released and paid to the petitioner.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent
State.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
Ranjeet/