Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 947 (PAT)

Navi Lal Rohita v. State Of Bihar

2005-10-21

J.N.BHATT, R.N.PRASAD

body2005
Judgment 1. By this Letters Patent Appeal, under the provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the appellants, who are original petitioners, have questioned the legality and validity of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 6749 of 2005, passed on 31.8.2005*, whereby the claim of the original petitioners, which was directed to be represented before the authority, by way of representation by this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 4724 of 2005, which was decided against the original petitioners-contractors, came to be rejected and, in result, the learned Single Judge concluded that the extension of time for the execution of the contract in question is not justified. 2. We have given our anxious thoughts and consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. At the time of hearing of this matter, at the beginning, we have also evaluated and examined the relevant materials from this Letters Patent Appeal. Let it be first mentioned that the appellants-original petitioners by virtue of an agreement between the parities, dated 2.5.2004, came to be allotted the Government contract with a stipulation of time for conclusion of the work. In the agreement itself the time limit upto 30th of June 2004 was prescribed for the completion of the contractual work in respect of the work of "Repair and blacktopping of W.F.E.-cum-Road from 15 Km. to 23 Km." of Western Embankment of Birpur. The work could not be completed within the stipulated period of time, which led to controversy. 3. The time was sought to be extended for completion of the work by the appellants-contractors, which was initially granted upto 31st December, 2004. Again, the work could not be completed within the extended period of time of more than seven months. Being aggrieved by the said, the Department-officials rescinded the contract and started inviting second fresh terms of tender, which prompted the contractors to challenge in the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 4724 of 2005), as aforesaid, but unsuccessfully. However, the learned Single Judge in that petition directed the original petitioners only to make representation to the appropriate authority for getting the period extended for the completion of the work in question. Unfortunately, again for the contractors, upon consideration of the representation, the Department did not think it appropriate to extend it. However, the learned Single Judge in that petition directed the original petitioners only to make representation to the appropriate authority for getting the period extended for the completion of the work in question. Unfortunately, again for the contractors, upon consideration of the representation, the Department did not think it appropriate to extend it. Hence, the request was turned down, as a result of which, the contractors by filing a second writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 6749 of 2005, sought the redressal seeking direction for extension of contractual period fixed for completing the contractual work. Upon consideration of the submissions and the materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 31.8.2005 rejected the petition. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants-original petitioners, who are contractors, reiterated the submissions, which were raised before the learned Single Judge. 5. Upon true interpretation and correct appraisal of the facts from the record and rival submissions and the settled proposition of law in case of breach of contract, we have, also, successfully, noticed that the action taken by the respondents-authorities in not granting extension for a further period, as requested by the contractors could not be said to be improper, in the facts of the case and the learned Single Judge upon appraisal of all facts and circumstances including the equity and the terms of the agreement, rightly denied the relief while dismissing the petition. It may be manifested on record that the learned Single Judge as well made certain pertinent observations in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment. It has been specifically mentioned that the original petitioners-contractors have been absolutely incapable of taking up the work of the present magnitude. It has been further observed that they are wholly unequipped and lack the requisite seriousness to execute a contract of this magnitude, particularly, where time was practically the essence of the contract, as is obvious from the limited time of five weeks agreed upon between the parties for completion of the work. As manifested in the agreement, it was obviously an anti-flood project and had to be completed within the stipulated period. As manifested in the agreement, it was obviously an anti-flood project and had to be completed within the stipulated period. It is a fact that the contract was in the nature of carrying out the repairs of embankment-cum-road, which is, apparently, an anti-flood project, and ordinarily in view of such a contractual reality and the nature of work, no extension of time could be considered reasonable. It will be also material to reiterate at this juncture that despite the fact that the time was extended once by the respondent-authorities and after the lapse of more than seven months period, the contractors failed to carry out the repair works as per the agreement. What does it indicate? The contractors, who had to complete certain contractual liability of such a vital project i.e. anti-flood project, could not complete it even after getting extension of time, and again failed even after seven months period. In these contexts, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is quite weighty, supportable and acceptable. 6. Even from the alternative angle, in the light of the principles and law for the redressal jurisprudence, if the parties have suffered any loss, the remedy for the aggrieved party, in a case of breach of contract for non-fulfilment of certain terms and conditions of the agreement, may seek remedy for damages. Undoubtedly, a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is a plenary, prerogative, equitable, and discretionary jurisdiction of the Court which can be exercised only in an appropriate fit case and not in a case where the party has possible redressal available to claim alleged compensation or damages, under the mechanism of the general civil law. Therefore, alternatively also, such a claim is meritless in a writ petition, and, moreso, when there is serious dispute with regard to question of fact. 7. After having taken into consideration the overall emergence of the materials on record, coupled with the plausible proposition of law, as well as, the reasons assigned in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the clear opinion that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference under the provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at this stage itself, as being meritless, with cost, which is quantified at Rs. 1000/- (One thousand).