Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 543 (UTT)

JDA Constructions v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-05

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek following reliefs, among others: (i) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for records and to quash the order dated 01.08.2016 by which the finalization of contract has been ordered. (ii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to finalize the contract till the dispute is pending before the learned Adjudicator. (iii) To issue writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the department give time extension to the petitioner and make pending payment to the petitioner so that the petitioner is able to complete the work. (2) The facts giving rise to present writ petition are that petitioner no.1 was awarded contract Bond no.28-UDRP/PWD/06/67/RD/049/2014 dated 27.09.2014 for the reconstruction of Byaschatti-Chheitu-Bhutnisi motor road (length 12 Km) and Birsanikhal-Kota-Silsu-Bhutnisi motor road (length 3.50 km). The date of commencement of said contract was 27.09.2014 and the date of completion was 03.01.2016. The petitioner had to complete the stage II work which included retaining walls, breast walls, disposal of surplus material, RR stone masonry, concreting, RCC, culverts, stone blast, black carpeting and complete work to run the traffic. Thereafter, a notice for termination of agreement dated 27.09.2014 was given by the Program Manager, PIU (R&B), UDRP, Dehradun (respondent no. 2) vide letter dated 13.06.2016. (3) A writ petition no. 1734 (M/S) of 2016 was filed by the petitioner before this Court, which was decided vide order dated 23.06.2016, as follows: “Writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent no. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within four weeks of presentation of certified copy of this order along with representation of the petitioner, and till then the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance. (4) The representation of the petitioner was decided by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 13.07.2016 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition). The same was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Adjudicator, who according to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, took a decision on the same on 02.09.2016. Before such a decision could be taken by the Adjudicator, present writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 2 vide order dated 13.07.2016 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition). The same was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Adjudicator, who according to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, took a decision on the same on 02.09.2016. Before such a decision could be taken by the Adjudicator, present writ petition was filed by the petitioner. (5) The Adjudicator has passed the order as follows: “After perusal of submissions, documentary evidences adduced and by respective party and provisions made in contract the Adjudicator has come to a conclusion that:- (a) Termination notice by defendants UDRP vide letter number 2573/RD/049 dated 13.06.2016 and followed by letter no.3402/RD/49 dated 01.08.2016 is not considered justified. Miscarriage of injustice has been carried out. (b) Extension of time for a minimum period of six months be granted to petitioners to enable them to complete balance left over works. (c) Sum becoming due for value of works carried out to be released to the petitioner in terms of agreed conditions of contract. (d) Extra works needed for entire completion of works be ordered on the petitioners.” (6) On 01.09.2016, when present writ petition was listed for admission, learned counsel for the respondent State was requested to seek instructions in the matter. Today Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Counsel for the respondent State has come up with the instructions that the matter is pending adjudication before the Adjudicator, but now, as stated earlier, learned counsel for the petitioners has already filed the supplementary affidavit indicating therein that a decision has already been taken by the Adjudicator. (7) Writ petition is disposed of in terms of the decision taken by the Adjudicator.