Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 450 (CHH)

Subhash Kumar Agrawal v. State of C. G.

2016-11-03

A.K.PANDA, T.P.SHARMA

body2016
ORDER : T.P. Sharma, Chairman By this reference petition under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (in short the Adhiniyam, 1983) petitioner has claimed the cost of difference of FE-415 grade steel and FE-500 grade steel along with interest and cost in connection with an agreement of incomplete bridge work. 2. Completion of work, extension of time grade of steel shown in tender documents as FE-415 and grade of steel shown in drawings and designs which was part and parcel of the agreement as FE-500, payment of cost of steel at the rate quoted by the petitioner while filing the tender documents is undisputed. 3. Facts as per pleadings of the parties, initially contract for Construction of Bridge upon Ghumariya Nala at Dongargaon-Churiya Road was given to an another contractor who, left the work incomplete. Subsequent tender for completion of uncompleted work was issued by the respondents Petitioner submitted its tender proposal and quoted cost 36.90 above the S.O.R. in which cost of steel grade FE-415 was quoted. Finally agreement was executed between parties on 22/05/2012 vide article A Drawings and designs was part and parcel of the agreement. As per drawing grade of steel was FE-500. After completion of the work petitioner has (claimed the difference of cost of steel FE-415 and steel FE-500) and there by claim Rs. 18,18,938/- along with cost of litigation and interest of Rs. 5,72,966/-, Rs. 1,00,000 there by total Rs. 24,91,904/- has been claimed. 4. Respondents have denied the claim of petitioner and has pleaded that at the time of signing the agreement drawings and designs were available and were part of agreement in which grade of steel has already been shown as FE-500 which was within the knowledge of petitioner and after knowing such facts petitioner has entered into an agreement with respondents. Therefore, he is no entitled for difference of cost of steel. 5. We have heard the respective counsels for the parties. 6. Counsel for petitioner Mr. Therefore, he is no entitled for difference of cost of steel. 5. We have heard the respective counsels for the parties. 6. Counsel for petitioner Mr. Abhinav Agrawal submits that as per tender, petitioner was required to use the FE-415 grade steel for which petitioner has quoted the rate but, as per drawing and design petitioner was required to use the steel of FE-500 grade steel for which, respondents have paid the cost of steel at the rate quoted by petitioner which was relating to the cost of steel FE-415 grade, therefore, petitioner is entitled for difference of cost of the steel grade shown in tender and shown in drawings along with cost of litigation and interest. 7. Mr. B.B. Agrawal counsel for the respondents submits that drawing and design is a part of an agreement article -A-. At the time of executing the agreement, petitioner was having specific know ledge of the grade of steel required to be used. He did not object the same at the time of executing the agreement. Therefore, he is not entitled for any claim. 8. As per submission of the parties, pleadings and documents. There is a variation between tender documents and agreement specially, relating to grade of the steel required to be used. As per article -A- the agreement, the drawings and designs was part and parcel of the agreement and as per drawing and design petitioner was required to use the steel of FE-500 grade and not steel of FE-415 grade mentioned in the tender (notice inviting tender). Submission of tender proposal and acceptance of tender proposals are only a proposal counter proposal and acceptance of proposal but it is no contract. It does not create any contractual obligation between the parties. 9. It was a contract between State Government and petitioner as per Article 299 of the Constitution of India, the contract by the state must be expressed, virtually article A agreement is a concluded contract between parties and is binding upon parties. As per article "A" petitioner was under obligation to use the steel of FE-500 grade shown in drawings and in absence of any other rate quoted by the petitioner, the petitioner was only entitled for the rate quoted by himself. As per article "A" petitioner was under obligation to use the steel of FE-500 grade shown in drawings and in absence of any other rate quoted by the petitioner, the petitioner was only entitled for the rate quoted by himself. Therefore, on the ground of variation of grade of steel in tender document and drawing which is a part of an agreement petitioner is not entitled for claim of difference of cost of steel on the ground of grade but he is only entitled for the cost of steel as per rate shown in concluded contract i.e. agreement containing the drawings and designs. 10. Therefore we do not find any substance in the petition and petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, with cost, Petitioner shall bear his own cost and cost of respondents. 11. Advocate fees if certified as per schedule. 12. Memo of cost be prepared accordingly.