Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 662 (JHR)

Anil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-13

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the Petitioner alleging that for supply of drinking water in the Giridih town though the project was supposed to be completed by the month of March, 2008 but was not completed even after extension of one year of time which expired in the month of March, 2009 and no substantial progress is there. As per the information given to the Petitioner, when he sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, he came to know that only 25% of the work has been done by the Nagarjuna Construction Company, Respondent No. 5, even after extension of period of one year. 3. On 04.09.2009, the State was given time to disclose whether the allegations made by the Petitioner are correct or not, then opportunity of hearing was granted to the said construction company and after number of orders passed by this Court the State cancelled the contract of the said construction company on 09.02.2011 and a new tender was floated on 07.05.2011. 4. The counsel for the said company submitted that tender cost of the work has been shown to be Rs. 112.504/- lakhs whereas according to the said construction company the work which was pending with the company was only to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs and that can be completed by the said company within a period of 45 days. For this work even nine months time was granted to the new contractor against the total work of 45 days. 20 lakhs and that can be completed by the said company within a period of 45 days. For this work even nine months time was granted to the new contractor against the total work of 45 days. The said company undertook to complete the work in 45 days upon which this Court vide order dated 18.05.2011, permitted the present construction company to complete the work and the process of inviting fresh tenders by the State Government in response to the notice dated 07.05.2011 was kept in abeyance after observing that this Court is not touching the issue with respect to any claim of the State or the contract with respect to the right of the State to cancel the contract and recover damages and the claim of the contractor of alleged wrongful cancellation of the contract in view of the fact that in this Public Interest Litigation the only question involved was with respect to the water supply to the residents of the Giridih town and this writ petition is not the adversary litigation between the contractor and the State. 5. Learned Counsel for the contractor company submitted that the contractor company has completed the work whereas the State submitted that some issue of seepage/leakage are pending. 6. Learned Counsel for the contractor company submitted that those are not the major issues as that can be addressed only after trial running in terms of the contract and, therefore, so far as the work at the level of the completion of the work is concerned, that has been completed except its testing which depends upon the running of the line by the State. 7. Be that as it may, in this litigation we are not concerned with that issue and we are only concerned with the issues of water supply to the residents of Giridih town, therefore, the Respondent State may proceed to have the test running of the supply as per the terms of the contract and thereafter, may proceed to give water supply to the residents of Giridih town from this work if it has been completed by the Respondent Nagarjuna company. 8. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that total five works were given which are technically known as five E.S. Rs. 8. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that total five works were given which are technically known as five E.S. Rs. and it is submitted that still two works have not been completed by the Nagarjuna Construction Company and those contracts have been cancelled and learned Counsel for the State pointed out that those works have been awarded in the year 2006 and have been cancelled in the year 2011 and after floating the new tenders, the work order was given to another construction company which is "M/s Sri Sai Construction Company" and this contract was given on 28.03.2011 and the period of construction of these two over head water tanks is of 12 months which will expire on 27.03.2012. 9. In view of the above reasons, it is clear that the State has now taken steps to get the work completed and the work will be completed within stipulated period and the contractor may be informed by the State Government about this order to emphasis that the work must be completed within the stipulated period. 10. After completion of the work by this new contractor (M/s Sri Sai Construction Company) probably there may be no grievance of the Petitioner as well as the residents of the Giridih town and we are disposing of this writ petition with liberty to the writ Petitioner to approach this Court by moving another petition or even by moving application in this petition pointing out that the works have not been completed and if completed, even then the grievance of the residents of Giridih town have not been fully redressed. 11. This writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above order. However, we have not touched any issue with respect to the claim and allegation of wrong termination of the contract or right of State to seek any damages from the contract in case of any default. Therefore, it is for the State to proceed in accordance with exigencies without being influenced by any order passed in this writ petition in favour or against any of the parties. Petition disposed of.